10/24/2024 09:30 AM
Current Time 40:02
Duration 5:00:55
Loaded: 13.38%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 4:20:53
 
1x
    • Chapters
    • descriptions off, selected
    • captions off, selected
    • default, selected
    Search
    • Clip 0 - Chairman Gleeson calls meeting to order
      00:00:04 This meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Texas will come to order. To consider
    • 00:00:08matters that have been duly posted with the Secretary of State for October
    • 00:00:1224, 2024. Good morning, everyone.
    • 00:00:16So before we get started, a bit of sad news.
    • 00:00:19As you can see, Commissioner Cobos is not here today. Her mother passed away
    • 00:00:23on the 19th of October. So she is in Alpine attending
    • 00:00:27to her family. You know, we send
    • 00:00:30our love out to her and lift her and her family up in
    • 00:00:34our thoughts and prayers and, you know,
    • 00:00:37just want to let her know and her staff know we're here as a PUC
    • 00:00:41family for anything you all need or anything that she needs. I would
    • 00:00:44say if you have time, go look at the Alpine Memorial Funeral
    • 00:00:48Home website. You can see her obituary.
    • 00:00:52And after reading it, I think it's a good testament to a life well
    • 00:00:56lived. And so I'd, you know, say if that's something
    • 00:01:00that you feel like doing, go look that up in the Alpine Memorial Funeral
    • 00:01:03Home website. And if you feel like
    • 00:01:07it, I would say, you know, reach out to Lori and let her know you're
    • 00:01:11thinking about her. Because in times like this, when you're dealing with grief,
    • 00:01:14knowing that you're not alone, I think is really important. So.
    • 00:01:18So with it also shows her mother's dedication
    • 00:01:23to family, which is just an amazing testament
    • 00:01:27to that. Just an amazing woman that you think
    • 00:01:31of Lori and all of her brothers and sisters and all of that, but it
    • 00:01:34does a really good job of telling her life story
    • 00:01:38and how intertwined it was with her family. Yeah, I believe Lori has
    • 00:01:4110 brothers and sisters and I think the obituary said some
    • 00:01:4424 great grandchild, grandchildren. Great grandchildren, maybe even
    • 00:01:48some great great grandchildren. So, absolutely.
    • Clip 0 - Motion to excuse Commissioner Cobos from today's meeting
      00:01:52 So with that, I would entertain a motion to excuse Commissioner
    • 00:01:56Cobos from today's open meeting. So moved.
    • 00:01:59Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?
    • 00:02:03Motion prevails. So just real quick,
    • 00:02:07for a bit of housekeeping. I think I'd recommend we, for the
    • 00:02:11most part, go in order of the agenda, with just a couple of exceptions. To
    • 00:02:15say we take up Public Comment first and then we
    • 00:02:18take up the oral argument in the CenterPoint CCN case. And then take up
    • 00:02:22Windermere, which I think is going to take quite some time. At the end,
    • 00:02:25after we finished all the other contested cases, rules and projects.
    • 00:02:29I know at a previous open meeting, we took the,
    • 00:02:35we took up the hearing in order and ended up taking a long time.
    • 00:02:39And a lot of folks that probably could have gotten out of here ahead of
    • 00:02:41that ended up having to sit here for a really long time. And so I
    • 00:02:45envision that may take a long time. So if it's okay with everybody, we'll go.
    • 00:02:48We'll do it in that order, if you're all right with that. Okay.
    • 00:02:51All right, then. We have no Closed Session today. So good morning,
    • 00:02:55Shelah, Connie, Barksdale. Shelah, will you
    • 00:02:59lay out the consent agenda, please? Yes.
    • 00:03:03Good morning. Commissioners recusal memos were filed in Project
    • 00:03:06No. 52761. Chairman Gleeson is recused
    • 00:03:10from Items 16 and 18. Commissioner Hjaltman is
    • 00:03:13recused from Items 6, 15 through 18, 21,
    • 00:03:1623, 24, and 27.
    • Clip 0.2 - Commission Counsel Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda
      00:03:20 By individual ballot, the following items were placed on your consent
    • 00:03:24agenda. Items 2 through 12, 16,
    • 00:03:2821, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34 and
    • 00:03:3735. Also by individual ballot, the Commissioners voted
    • 00:03:40to place Items 36 and 58 on the consent
    • 00:03:44agenda, and no one signed up to speak on those items. Thank you,
    • Clip 0.1 - Chairman Gleeson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda
      00:03:47Shelah. I entertain a motion to approve the consent items as laid out by Shelah.
    • 00:03:51So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
    • 00:03:56Opposed? Motion prevails. All right, so let's
    • 00:04:00start with Item No. 1, Public Comment. Shelah, has anyone signed up for Public
    • Clip 1 - Public comment for matters that are under the Commission’s jurisdiction, but not specifically posted on this agenda
      00:04:03Comment this morning? Yes, sir. We have three people that have signed up for Public
    • 00:04:07Comment. Let me go ahead and bring up all three. And just
    • 00:04:10to confirm, is it the usual three minutes? Three minutes. All right,
    • 00:04:13let's call up Alan Hicks, Scott Miller, and Deborah Fato.
    • 00:04:17I'm not sure how to pronounce the last name. Fato. Fato, thank you.
    • 00:04:22Come on up, everyone. Yeah. If y'all want to come up,
    • 00:04:25and we'll go one at a time. And before you speak, if you'll say your
    • 00:04:29name for the court report for the records, the court reporter makes sure that she
    • 00:04:32gets that. All right, so let's
    • 00:04:39start.
    • 00:04:43Let's start with Mr. Hicks.
    • Clip 1 - Alan Hicks - Member of Windermere Oaks WSC
      00:04:49 My name is Alan Hicks. Good morning, commissioners, and thank you.
    • 00:04:53As I say, my name is Alan Hicks. I'm a member of the Windermere Oaks
    • 00:04:56Water Supply Corporation. My neighbors,
    • 00:05:00who are also members of the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation,
    • 00:05:04and I are here today to show our support for
    • 00:05:09the staff of the Public Utility Commission today.
    • 00:05:15Thank you. Thank you, sir.
    • 00:05:18All right, next up is Scott
    • 00:05:22Miller.
    • Clip 1 - Scott Miller - Member of Windermere Oaks WSC
      00:05:25 Hello. My name is Scott Miller. I am a recent
    • 00:05:29board member of the Windermere and Water Supply Corporation,
    • 00:05:33but have been a member since 2016. And I wanted to give you
    • 00:05:37a kind of a bird's eye view of my impression
    • 00:05:41of this whole thing that we've been going through for probably the
    • 00:05:44last ten years. A lot of
    • 00:05:48this has come down to PUC's
    • 00:05:52rate that was mandated to us with no chance for a rate increase
    • 00:05:56for twelve months, and it's going to lead to our
    • 00:05:59insolvency within two months, if not corrected.
    • 00:06:04Due to PUC's ordered rates, we lose a minimum
    • 00:06:08of $10,000 a month. And that's just
    • 00:06:11for our basic operation of the utility.
    • 00:06:15Due to our old and aging environment, we have
    • 00:06:19repairs, we have new things that got to be put in isolation,
    • 00:06:22valves, etcetera. Our actual expenses
    • 00:06:26have gone from an additional 20 to 45,000
    • 00:06:30a month. And as you can see, this eats up our cash very
    • 00:06:34quickly.
    • 00:06:37The compliance docket that was put on us with
    • 00:06:43a two to month interval to comply with,
    • 00:06:48we had to choose between putting our
    • 00:06:52resources to that, which included bookkeepers, cpas,
    • 00:06:55attorneys, or keeping the water service going.
    • 00:06:59As a board, we decided to keep the water service going and
    • 00:07:03let these things slide. So there was no real intention of
    • 00:07:06not obeying these. We did not have the money to do that
    • 00:07:10due to the imposed rates upon us.
    • 00:07:23And with the order that
    • 00:07:27was put on us, there was no funding allowed for any of these
    • 00:07:30items to be finished. And we told
    • 00:07:34the PUC back in May that we did not
    • 00:07:38have the money to do this. We told the staff and we have never heard
    • 00:07:41anything back about it. So this is how we
    • 00:07:45are stuck in this situation. Thank you.
    • 00:07:48Thank you, sir. All right, and Miss
    • Clip 1 - Deborah Fato - Ratepayer Rep for Bear Creek SUD
      00:07:51Fato. Hello,
    • 00:07:55folks. I'm back for like my third time.
    • 00:07:59I am Deborah Fato. I was ratepayer representative for the
    • 00:08:03Bear Creek Special Utility District. Action under 49351
    • 00:08:07that was resolved a couple years ago, but it was resolved
    • 00:08:11poorly the last time I was here on April 8,
    • 00:08:142022. I spoke to you about how I was very disappointed
    • 00:08:18that we got to a point after three years of blood,
    • 00:08:22sweat and tears of me as a paralegal without an attorney bringing an action
    • 00:08:26before this board to get the excessive
    • 00:08:30service fee and rates lowered from the $35 back
    • 00:08:34to what was supposed to be ordered lowered to $30.81.
    • 00:08:39Well, Bear Creek didn't do it,
    • 00:08:42and so we had to pay back attorneys fees. We were
    • 00:08:46surcharged and they never lowered the rate
    • 00:08:49as ordered. You wouldn't enforce it. When I was asking
    • 00:08:53Kourtnee Jinks, the PUC Staff Attorney, who was handling our case.
    • 00:08:57Why this was happening? She said, well if you don't
    • 00:09:00like it, you can just take it up with the Legislature. And then I tried
    • 00:09:04to call you, Mr. Gleeson. And you told me I'd have to go
    • 00:09:07through the Staff Attorney who just hung up on me, and that was the end
    • 00:09:10of the case and conversation. So that message on the mission statement
    • 00:09:14out there in the hall. That says you guys are here to protect the customers
    • 00:09:18and the ratepayers in water cases, I call
    • 00:09:21on that. You're not doing anything to
    • 00:09:25protect water ratepayers. And that allows small
    • 00:09:29rural water companies, especially the Bear Creek
    • 00:09:33SUD, is the poster child personification of
    • 00:09:36absolute corruption that is happening up in the
    • 00:09:40states. So on Kourtnee Jinks advice, I have taken it
    • 00:09:44up with the Legislature. I've met with my Congresswoman. I've met with Collin County
    • 00:09:48Commissioners, and I have hired a media guru.
    • 00:09:51I have created a YouTube page called Love for
    • 00:09:55Lavon. Where we are to collect all kinds of
    • 00:09:58testimony and stories for the legislator to start investigations on how
    • 00:10:02small rural water companies are run. Because they're not policed by
    • 00:10:06the PUC and they're not policed by anybody. In fact,
    • 00:10:10since our rates went up, we've had five
    • 00:10:13rate increases since I brought the first one in 2019.
    • 00:10:17Well, I brought the first one in 2017 that missed it
    • 00:10:21by a day late. So it never went. So we got 300
    • 00:10:25plus signatures. Again, I'm out there dealing with the public,
    • 00:10:28but now the rate went up to $40.25 for
    • 00:10:32the minimum monthly bill. They don't even call it a service fee anymore.
    • 00:10:36I can't get the public support because they said, well,
    • 00:10:40last time you went and did this, it just cost us $4.77
    • 00:10:44on our water bill until we had to pay that back three years later.
    • 00:10:47So John Carlton,
    • 00:10:50bottom dwelling pond scum attorney that found his
    • 00:10:54niche doing water cases where it's guaranteed payment. He just ran
    • 00:10:58our case on that attorney's fees gravy train to
    • 00:11:02the hilt. Anyway, I have
    • 00:11:06a QR code. I have surveys.
    • 00:11:10I have a legislative backing, and I'm collecting stories
    • 00:11:14from everybody. Not just against Bear Creek SUD, but against
    • 00:11:17all rural water company. Anyone that wants to tell me about it.
    • 00:11:20I plan on bringing legislative action to change
    • 00:11:24the laws of the State of Texas so that attorneys fees are
    • 00:11:27not automatically paid by the ratepayers.
    • 00:11:33Our general manager's company car is a
    • 00:11:36Range Rover now. Her salary went from 100 grand
    • 00:11:40to 130 grand. After they voted me off the board
    • 00:11:44six to one unanimous. Three months after I won an election
    • 00:11:47in May of 2022. They have decided when
    • 00:11:51it was a volunteer position and zero compensation for the board of directors.
    • 00:11:55Now they pay themselves dollar 175 per meeting
    • 00:11:59just to do it. And they are
    • 00:12:03continually just raping
    • 00:12:07the community. The general manager and the board of directors is a
    • 00:12:10small clique. They haven't had any elections since they voted me off
    • 00:12:14the board. And the president has been there like
    • 00:12:1728 years. Aren't there some kind of term limits? The general manager.
    • 00:12:21Ma'am, if you wouldn't mind wrapping up your comments please. She started as the office
    • 00:12:25manager. The general manager died. She promoted herself and she just runs
    • 00:12:29it like the mafia. So I'm
    • 00:12:33here to tell you and to let the Public Utility Commission
    • 00:12:36know that I am commencing legislative action. And I,
    • 00:12:40you know, when Kourtnee Jinks told me take it up with the legislature.
    • 00:12:43You know, most people thought that would be a big challenge. But after getting
    • 00:12:47my cases through here for three years as a paralegal,
    • 00:12:51it's not such a big challenge to me. I'm ready to take it on
    • 00:12:55to the limit. And you guys should really
    • 00:12:58think about how you govern small rural water
    • 00:13:02companies. And you should really think about allowing attorneys fees in unjust
    • 00:13:07situations where they just rape the ratepayers over
    • 00:13:10the coals, because they know they're going to get paid anyway. Thank you for being
    • 00:13:13here this morning, appreciate you. You're welcome. I had to drive
    • 00:13:16from Dallas, get a hotel, rent a car, and I went to great
    • 00:13:20expense to be here. And every time I come,
    • 00:13:24it's thank you for coming. You did nothing
    • 00:13:28for us. You did nothing for the ratepayers of Bear
    • 00:13:31Creek SUD. So I will take it up with the legislature.
    • 00:13:36Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.
    • 00:13:41Shelah, that concludes Public Testimony. That's correct. Okay,
    • 00:13:45so I think per our earlier discussion, we will start with
    • 00:13:48Item No. 20. If you would lay out Item No. 20, please?
    • Clip 20 - Docket No. 55768; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-06199 – Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed 138-kV Transmission Line in Harris and Montgomery Counties
      00:13:56 Item 20 is Docket No. 55768.
    • 00:14:00The application of CenterPoint to amend it's CCN for
    • 00:14:04proposed 138-kV transmission line in Harris and
    • 00:14:07Montgomery Counties. Before you is a SOAH proposal for
    • 00:14:11decision. Exceptions and replies to the PFD were filed.
    • 00:14:15The SOAH ALJ filed a letter declining to make changes to the proposal for
    • 00:14:19decision. I filed a Commission Counsel memo recommending changes
    • 00:14:22to the final order. And oral argument was requested in
    • 00:14:26this proceeding. And the Commission voted to grant oral argument.
    • 00:14:30Thank you, Shelah. I'd recommend we give, as we traditionally do,
    • 00:14:34three minutes to each party for oral argument, if that's okay with everyone.
    • 00:14:38Okay. All right. We have, it looks
    • 00:14:41like 1, 2, 3, 4
    • 00:14:45separate parties that decided to speak. I would suggest that all four
    • 00:14:48come to the table for to streamline this.
    • 00:15:06And you said five minutes, is that correct? I think we said for this three
    • 00:15:09minutes. Three minutes, sorry. Yes. All right, I've got three minutes set.
    • 00:15:16All right, let's start. We have two people that have signed up that
    • 00:15:19look like they're for the same party. Samuel Elliott
    • 00:15:22and Rebecca Elliott. Is there one person who's going to speak on behalf
    • 00:15:26of your party? You're both going to speak.
    • 00:15:30It's up to the presiding officer. So yeah, three minutes per party. Per party. Yes.
    • 00:15:33So we'll be three minutes between the two of you.
    • 00:15:37All right. I just want to make sure.
    • 00:15:41So we have,
    • 00:15:44we have to split 3 minutes? That's correct. Three minutes per party.
    • 00:15:48So you're one party. Yes, sir. Okay. All right.
    • Clip 20 - Sam Elliott - Montgomery County resident - opposition to CenterPoint's application, 55768
      00:15:53You're ready? Go. Okay. Hi. I'm Sam Elliott.
    • 00:15:57Good morning. So, thank you for allowing us to speak.
    • 00:16:01So this application should be denied. First,
    • 00:16:05CenterPoint hasn't established where the load center is for
    • 00:16:09any, you know, of their revisions
    • 00:16:13and everything that they've done. So there's no,
    • 00:16:16you know, place for, you know,
    • 00:16:20to put the, you know, the sites.
    • 00:16:23Second, there are numerous errors and gaps in
    • 00:16:26the application as stated, you know, throughout. Even the judge,
    • 00:16:30everyone keeps coming back and saying there's all these errors
    • 00:16:34still. And even with
    • 00:16:37them taking abatements to amend it and
    • 00:16:41erratas and everything, there's still errors in their application,
    • 00:16:45so it should be denied.
    • 00:16:48Third, even the Governor asked for CenterPoint to maintain
    • 00:16:52the infrastructure that they have, and they haven't.
    • 00:16:55We've got pictures that we're happy to pass out to all of
    • 00:16:59you. Showing even this weekend, they haven't
    • 00:17:02maintained their infrastructure, the lines,
    • 00:17:05the poles, anything in the area.
    • 00:17:08And that's what's causing the outages.
    • 00:17:12It's not the load that's causing the outages like CenterPoint will have
    • 00:17:15you believe. Fourth, CenterPoint has repeatedly
    • 00:17:21suppressed the fact that they own property in the area. That
    • 00:17:25they could have used for this instead of looking
    • 00:17:29at purchasing new property in the area.
    • 00:17:33And fifth, even the experts have
    • 00:17:38misconstrued under sworn testimony.
    • 00:17:42The amount of space needed for this 5
    • 00:17:45acres is not enough. Because even when they had the
    • 00:17:48choice to choose how many acres on see, because it's a 70 acre plot
    • 00:17:53and not a 15 acre plot, they chose 15 acres.
    • 00:17:56Five for road, ten for
    • 00:18:01building the substation. Ten was chosen for Site B.
    • 00:18:05Why was Site A only chosen for five
    • 00:18:08acres? They need a pond. They need to connect to a spillway
    • 00:18:12that's going to affect our property. They're going to eminent domain our
    • 00:18:16property or the Murray's property. And cost the community
    • 00:18:19even more money to accomplish what they're
    • 00:18:23trying to do.
    • 00:18:26In conclusion, I think we should hold CenterPoint to a higher standard.
    • 00:18:30We should make sure that their application is backed
    • 00:18:34by the data and good.
    • 00:18:36Not still having errors in it.
    • Clip 20 - Rebecca Elliott - Montgomery County resident - opposition to CenterPoint's application, 55768
      00:18:42 I agree with. I had more to say, but I don't think they have the
    • 00:18:45time. Basically, I agree with my husband. I feel that the data
    • 00:18:49is not there. There's too much. There's too many errors.
    • 00:18:53It's basically going to end up with us. Imminent domain that's
    • 00:18:57not in the paperwork, that's not proved. But if you look
    • 00:19:00into it, you'll see that that's the truth of it. And you're going to displace
    • 00:19:03our autistic son. Who as, you know,
    • 00:19:06autism kids and people they have
    • 00:19:10a hard time with changing the routine
    • 00:19:13and everything. Thank you. Thank you.
    • 00:19:17Do you want the pictures, by the way? Pass them over to.
    • 00:19:24Yes, if you have copies. I have. We brought five copies.
    • 00:19:39All right, then we have three people that have also signed
    • 00:19:42up, actually. I'm sorry. Looks like we have one attorney
    • 00:19:46representing Carly Barton.
    • 00:19:50Yes, your honor. We have separate parties. And I'll
    • 00:19:54yield my time to these two separate parties.
    • 00:19:58We are part of the Salt Pines Alliance, but they are different neighborhoods,
    • 00:20:03if that makes sense. Yeah, but it's an aligned. Is it an aligned
    • 00:20:07group? Yes. So three minutes total
    • 00:20:10for yours. All right, you may begin. Go ahead.
    • Clip 20 - Mason McBee - Montgomery County resident - opposition to CenterPoint's application, 55768
      00:20:15 Good morning. My name is Mason McBee. I live with my wife and two young
    • 00:20:18children in the community we're discussing today. More specifically, we live
    • 00:20:22along segment P, which has been consistently featured. Our neighborhood of about 50 homes
    • 00:20:26is a quiet, spread out, 1970s era community. We have some residents that are
    • 00:20:30now third generation adults and a state and county bent on progress
    • 00:20:33and development. We have quietly watched land cleared, highways expanded,
    • 00:20:37and suburban neighborhoods erected. This irresponsible development has brought
    • 00:20:41us here today. Segment P is located along a floodplain
    • 00:20:45and wetlands area comprising almost 90% of the
    • 00:20:48segment. Almost every home along the route or nearby flooded
    • 00:20:51during Hurricane Harvey. The area of Segment P is a virgin forest
    • 00:20:55that will remain otherwise, one of the last natural habitats in the entire
    • 00:20:59area featuring abundant wildlife, including eagles.
    • 00:21:02This area is also undergoing constant erosion,
    • 00:21:06which passes through this area, and we have concerns that
    • 00:21:09the budget has not accommodated this fact of
    • 00:21:13all the gullies and washouts and will allow for responsible
    • 00:21:17planning to prevent harmful water shedding to the existing homes that
    • 00:21:20have already suffered. Further, the factor of prudent avoidance
    • 00:21:24has been a consistent argument in favor of the selected route. This is
    • 00:21:28invalid reasoning, as this route inequitably harms those located along
    • 00:21:31the path. If a route selection affects 100 homeowners minimally
    • 00:21:34or indirectly, say, across the street, but the preferred route significantly or
    • 00:21:38detrimentally affects a few homeowners this is not a rational factor.
    • 00:21:41This inherently favors new development that are the cause of the alleged need to
    • 00:21:45begin with while punishing older, original communities.
    • 00:21:48As homeowners in the area that will potentially lose homes, face face
    • 00:21:52uncoverable loss, lose the peace and joy of being home, we cannot
    • 00:21:56in good conscience to our community end the application process with steps skipped,
    • 00:22:00errors made, corners cut, and promising alternatives that were more
    • 00:22:04palatable to our community, intentionally ignored in order
    • 00:22:08to advance the schedule. This process has placed undue burden and
    • 00:22:11stress on the community. Because of the application shortcomings,
    • 00:22:14CenterPoint should be capable of providing good quality work
    • 00:22:18in the application. CenterPoint has the burden of proof and has failed
    • 00:22:22to provide it. In two years, they still have not notified
    • 00:22:25us of a need or demonstrated a
    • 00:22:28load center. I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of the homeowner
    • 00:22:32along the affected route about to have your homestead permanently changed if one
    • 00:22:36of the opening sentences in the proposal for decision was inadequate,
    • 00:22:39notice of failure to fully consider alternatives,
    • 00:22:42unreliable and unsupported data regarding the need for the project and
    • 00:22:46or errors in the application that impeded intervenors ability to respond,
    • 00:22:50as well as the ALJ's and Commission's ability to assess the
    • 00:22:53project. Would your community be ready to accept this project?
    • 00:22:57This application should be denied and CenterPoint should perform the
    • 00:23:01due diligence required to find the best solution for our community.
    • Clip 20 - James Day - Montgomery County resident - opposition to CenterPoint's application, 55768
      00:23:04Thank you. Hello, Commissioners.
    • 00:23:08Hello, Commissioners. My name is James Day. I thought I had three minutes
    • 00:23:12today, so I'm going to try to just be very, very brief. Thank you.
    • 00:23:15I'm going to cut to the chase. I support everything that Mason has
    • 00:23:19just told you, but I'm going to raise up one additional point, which was
    • 00:23:22one of my main points. Hardin Store Road is
    • 00:23:25a two lane rural road. It's an asphalt road, it's narrow,
    • 00:23:29it has no shoulders, and it has very, very heavy traffic.
    • 00:23:34CenterPoint's plan is to put this massive,
    • 00:23:38you know, large towers and overhead wires immediately
    • 00:23:42adjacent and down the side of Hardin Store Road across my property
    • 00:23:45and several other owners in the ranches of Pinehurst. My main
    • 00:23:49concern is for public safety. What's going to happen when they install that
    • 00:23:52facility along Hardin Store Road is all the drivers, which is thousands
    • 00:23:56per day, are going to be very distracted looking at
    • 00:24:00what is an extremely out of place installation in a
    • 00:24:03forested, rural residential area.
    • 00:24:07And my concern is that people are going to be so distracted,
    • 00:24:11they're going to have head on collisions with each other, possibly with me,
    • 00:24:14my family, my grandchildren come to visit, so on and so forth.
    • 00:24:18So I am very concerned about our safety and public safety,
    • 00:24:22and I wanted that on the record. I had many other comments, but I'll yield
    • 00:24:25the rest of my time. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
    • 00:24:29All right, the next party is commission staff.
    • Clip 20 - Dylan King - Commission Staff - support for Route 2a, 55768
      00:24:42 Good morning, Commissioners. Dylan King, on behalf of Commission Staff.
    • 00:24:45Essentially, Commission Staff supports Route 2A as
    • 00:24:48outlined in PFD. Thank you very much. Thank you.
    • 00:24:53Commissioners, any questions? And one
    • 00:24:56more party for CenterPoint. Oh, yeah.
    • Clip 20 - Patrick Leahy - Baker Botts on behalf of CenterPoint - How transmission line would serve community, 55768
      00:25:00 Good morning Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Patrick Leahy. I'm with Baker Botts
    • 00:25:04and I'm here on behalf of CenterPoint. CenterPoint has applied to the Commission for
    • 00:25:07an amendment to its CCN to allow it to construct a new 138
    • 00:25:11kilovolt transmission line in Montgomery and a small portion
    • 00:25:14of Harris County. The line will serve a new distribution substation called
    • 00:25:18Mill Creek. Mill Creek would be located in a rapidly
    • 00:25:22growing area of Montgomery County where new subdivisions and
    • 00:25:25the businesses that serve them are being built every day.
    • 00:25:28No party to this proceeding contest that there's significant growth in this area and
    • 00:25:33that it is in need of additional electric service. When CenterPoint
    • 00:25:36evaluated its transmission and distribution services in this area,
    • 00:25:40it determined that the growth in Mill Creek and in the surrounding areas
    • 00:25:43would strain its existing system. Nearby substations
    • 00:25:47were already either maxed out or serve sufficient load
    • 00:25:51that they did not have enough excess capacity to meet contingency situations.
    • 00:25:55This general growth and the need to ensure reliable service
    • 00:26:00necessitated CenterPoint's application. The SOAH
    • 00:26:04ALJ correctly found that CenterPoint Houston met
    • 00:26:07its burden and had established that the new transmission line
    • 00:26:11is necessary to serve this growing portion of Montgomery County.
    • 00:26:15The ALJ rightly found that CenterPoint demonstrated a
    • 00:26:19need for service in this area. The ALJ rightly found that the new transmission
    • 00:26:23line is the best option to meet that need,
    • 00:26:26and the ALJ rightly found that CenterPoint considered distribution
    • 00:26:30alternatives and found them both technically deficient and
    • 00:26:33not cost effective. The ALJ's
    • 00:26:37secondary recommendation in this proceeding, that CenterPoint be required to refile
    • 00:26:41its application and restart this contested process,
    • 00:26:44would needlessly delay this much needed infrastructure.
    • 00:26:48No one in this proceeding disputes that the Mill Creek area is growing
    • 00:26:52and needs additional electric service, and as the group
    • 00:26:55of intervenors, led by a gentleman named John Wong, stated in their
    • 00:26:59reply to tallpines exceptions, requiring CenterPoint to restart this
    • 00:27:03CCN process would cost both the commission and interveners
    • 00:27:06a great deal of time and money and, importantly, would likely result
    • 00:27:10in the same outcome. CenterPoint's exceptions to
    • 00:27:14the PFD document the evidence that is already in the record in
    • 00:27:17this proceeding that responds to each of the ALJ's concerns to
    • 00:27:21the extent they're relevant to this type of project.
    • 00:27:25Intervener's exceptions to the PFD are without merit.
    • 00:27:28CenterPoint provided ample information about each of the
    • 00:27:31routes it proposed. Every party had an opportunity to file discovery requests
    • 00:27:35both on the original application and on CenterPoint's amended application.
    • 00:27:39Indeed, parties had the same seven weeks after
    • 00:27:43CenterPoint filed its amendment to review and
    • 00:27:46seek discovery on that amended application as it did on the original
    • 00:27:50application. The same amount of time the parties
    • 00:27:53propounded 395 discovery requests upon CenterPoint, not including
    • 00:27:57subparts. There's no lack of information in this proceeding.
    • 00:28:02CenterPoint adequately considered alternatives to the that's my time you
    • 00:28:05wrap up that comment. I was just going to say that Centerpoint adequately considered
    • 00:28:09alternatives to the new line. There's pages and pages
    • 00:28:12in our application documenting how we evaluated the technical deficiency
    • 00:28:16of building additional distribution lines from the existing substations
    • 00:28:20and how a transmission line was both technically preferable and then ultimately
    • 00:28:24more cost effective. Thank you. Now
    • 00:28:27Commissioners, questions?
    • 00:28:31I don't have any. Just a quick question, sir. For the application
    • 00:28:34and in their comments, I know that you did some amendments to the application.
    • 00:28:38Did you end up correcting all errors in the application?
    • 00:28:42And did you all help in the application to start or was it CenterPoint themselves
    • Clip 20 - Commissioner Hjaltman to CenterPoint - How application was prepared, 55768
      00:28:46that did the application? The application was prepared by CenterPoint
    • 00:28:50myself as well as an outside consultant, third party consultant.
    • 00:28:54We discovered some errors in the process of reviewing route adequacy.
    • 00:28:58We corrected those errors. Those corrections didn't involve
    • 00:29:01the addition of any new routes. What happened was essentially the consultant had forgot to
    • 00:29:05cross the street for the last portion
    • 00:29:08of a few segments into one of the substations. When they
    • 00:29:12made that correction, there were other down the ballot, so to speak,
    • 00:29:16corrections that needed to be made that we discovered after they'd made their changes.
    • 00:29:19We needed to correct those and filed an errata with
    • 00:29:23a red line showing all of the changes. We then had a new
    • 00:29:27procedural schedule that allowed parties the opportunity to review those changes.
    • 00:29:30There was one additional errata later in the process where we had inadvertently
    • 00:29:34left out a portion of the cost that was consistent across all routes.
    • 00:29:38So essentially everything changed in the exact same way, rather than changing
    • 00:29:42the comparison as between routes. So we are confident
    • 00:29:45that having discovered these unfortunate
    • 00:29:50mistakes in the original application, CenterPoint did what it ought to do, which is
    • 00:29:54recognize the error, abate the proceeding, correct the errors,
    • 00:29:57and essentially restart the discovery and review process.
    • 00:30:02Okay, so you did abate and restart. That's right.
    • 00:30:07I do have one question and that is. Well, this gentleman doesn't
    • 00:30:11want you going down Hardin Shore Road. Did TRC actually look
    • 00:30:14at going all the way down Hardin Store Road to the
    • 00:30:18railroad crossing and then going down the railroad right away?
    • Clip 20 - Commissioner Glotfelty to CenterPoint - Transmission lines and railroad tracks, 55768
      00:30:21 I believe so, Commissioner Glotfelty. I don't see that in any of the
    • 00:30:26routes studied. And I'm just wondering,
    • 00:30:30obviously, sitting up here following
    • 00:30:33rights of ways is a piece of consideration,
    • 00:30:38and I know this line does, but I'm just wondering, as a
    • 00:30:42former transmission developer, it seems like you go down
    • 00:30:45a right of way and then you hit another right away and you go down.
    • 00:30:48That is a very logical process.
    • 00:30:51Can you any comments on that? There are existing transmission lines
    • 00:30:55in the area of those railroad tracks. I know
    • 00:30:58there is some concern with interference with the railroad.
    • 00:31:02I believe we have that in our testimony and in our application as well.
    • 00:31:05Is that what the railroad said? I'm sorry? Is that what the railroad
    • 00:31:09said? No, I think that that was our concern. Okay.
    • 00:31:12Yes, I know that that may have eliminated those
    • 00:31:15routes early on. Nevertheless, there are 23
    • 00:31:19available routes in the application through this relatively small,
    • 00:31:23increasingly urban area.
    • 00:31:29Any other questions? Okay, thank you all for being here this morning. Thank you.
    • 00:31:34So Commissioners, I don't know how your briefings went on this.
    • 00:31:37We spent some. A good amount of time on this, and given what was
    • 00:31:41just said, I think it would be helpful for me to go back through the
    • 00:31:45record as we're making this decision. And if it's all right
    • 00:31:48with you all, I'd ask that we give ourselves kind of the next
    • 00:31:52couple weeks and bring this back to the next open meeting for a decision,
    • 00:31:55because I want to give due consideration to everything that was said
    • 00:31:58and everything that's in the record. Do we have any type of deadline?
    • 00:32:03There is a statutory deadline. It has passed.
    • 00:32:08I think that's helpful to take the time. Yeah. And those deadlines are
    • 00:32:11important. But again, I think given how
    • 00:32:15contentious this has been, I think it's more important to get it right than is
    • 00:32:18to get it right now. And so I think giving ourselves a couple weeks
    • 00:32:22to go back through this record would be helpful, at least for me. I agree.
    • 00:32:26I'm supportive. Okay. Thank you,
    • 00:32:34Shelah. That will bring us, I believe to Item
    • 00:32:38number 14.
    • Clip 14 - Docket No. 55299 – Application of Syntrio Solutions, LLC for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity in Baylor, Clay, Childress, Cottle, Foard, Hall, Hardeman, Haskell, Knox, Motley, Stonewall, Throckmorton, Wichita, and Wilbarger Counties
      00:32:43 Item 14 is docket number 55299. The application
    • 00:32:48of Syntrio Solutions, LLC for a CCN
    • 00:32:52in various counties. Before you is the applicant's appeal of
    • 00:32:55Order No. 16. And Chairman Gleeson filed a memo in this docket.
    • 00:33:00So, as I said in my memo, I mostly agree with the ALJ,
    • 00:33:03but I would reverse the ALJ on the decision to void the transaction.
    • 00:33:08Any thoughts or questions?
    • 00:33:12I agree with what you laid out in the memo.
    • 00:33:14That void is not the best option to go forth,
    • 00:33:18but the other items laid out is the way to follow the
    • 00:33:22as written. I agree with your memo as well.
    • 00:33:26Not voiding the transaction, I think at this point in time, is the
    • 00:33:30right path to take.
    • Clip 14 - Motion to grant in part & deny in part appeal of Order No. 16, 55299
      00:33:34I'm supportive of your memo. Okay. With that, I will entertain a
    • 00:33:37motion to grant in part and deny in part, the appeal of order
    • 00:33:41number 16 consistent with my memo. So moved.
    • 00:33:45I second. Have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
    • 00:33:48Aye. Opposed. Motion prevails.
    • 00:33:51Shelah, that will take us now to Item No. 15.
    • Clip 15 - Docket No. 54614; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-04312 – Statement of Intent and Application of El Paso Electric Company for Approval of Texas Electric Vehicle-Ready Pilot Programs and Tariffs
      00:33:55Will you lay out item 15, please? Yes. Item 15 is Docket
    • 00:33:59No. 54614. This is the statement of intent
    • 00:34:03and application of El Paso Electric for approval
    • 00:34:06of Texas Electric Vehicle-Ready Pilot Programs and Tariffs. Before
    • 00:34:10you is a SOAH proposal for decision. Exceptions and replies to
    • 00:34:13the PFD were filed. The SOAH ALJ has filed a
    • 00:34:17letter and declined to make any changes to the PFD.
    • 00:34:20I filed a memo recommending changes to the final order and Chairman Gleeson
    • 00:34:24also filed a memo. So, as I said, my memo, I'd recommend that
    • 00:34:28we adopt the PFD, but make some changes, changes to the order to clarify
    • 00:34:32and implement some of the PFD's recommendations. I think the
    • 00:34:35ALJ did a really good job on this and got the correct
    • 00:34:39decision on the proposed programs. So, thoughts or questions?
    • 00:34:44I agree with your memo.
    • 00:34:48Okay. I will entertain a motion to modify the PFD with the changes discussed
    • 00:34:52in my memo and direct docket management to prepare an order consistent with
    • 00:34:55my memo. Chairman, before you make that motion. Yes, ma'am. May I ask
    • 00:34:59if you agree with the changes in the Commission
    • 00:35:02Counsel memo as well? Yes, I did. Yes.
    • Clip 15 - Motion to modify PFD with changes from Chairman Gleeson & Commission Counsel's memos and direct docket management to prepare an order, 54614
      00:35:06Can we redo that? Sure. Absolutely. So I'd entertain a motion
    • 00:35:09to modify the PFD with the changes discussed in my memo and
    • 00:35:13Commission Counsel's memo, and direct docket management to prepare an order consistent with
    • 00:35:17my memo and Commission Counsel's memo. So moved.
    • 00:35:21I second. Have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
    • 00:35:25Opposed? Motion prevails.
    • 00:35:28All right, Shelah. That will take us then to Item No. 17.
    • Clip 17 - Docket No. 55255; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-02691 – Application of Southwestern Public Service Company to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to Construct Generation Facilities in Lamb County, Texas and Lea County, New Mexico; for Good-Cause Exceptions; and for Related Relief
      00:35:31Will you lay out Item No. 17, please? Yes, sir. Item 17
    • 00:35:35is Docket No. 55255. The application
    • 00:35:39of Southwestern Public Service Company to amend its
    • 00:35:42CCN to construct generation facilities. The Commission
    • 00:35:46order in this docket was filed on September 12.
    • 00:35:49Before you, our motions for rehearing. The Commission voted to add the motions for
    • 00:35:54rehearing to this agenda for the sole purpose of extending time. So I'd
    • 00:35:58recommend we extend time on this docket. I would
    • 00:36:01as well support. Okay.
    • Clip 17 - Motion to extend time to act on motions for rehearing to maximum time allowed by law, 55255
      00:36:05 I will entertain a motion to extend time to act on the motions for
    • 00:36:08rehearing to the maximum time allowed by law. So moved.
    • 00:36:13I second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
    • 00:36:16Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails. I'm recused
    • 00:36:20from item 18, so we'll come back to that. And at that point,
    • 00:36:23hand the gavel over to Commissioner Glotfelty. But that will take us
    • 00:36:27now to Item No. 19. Shelah, will you lay out Item No.
    • Clip 19 - Docket No. 55361; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-07156– Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC to Adjust Its System-Wide Reliability Standards
      00:36:3019, please? Item 19 is Docket No. 55361,
    • 00:36:35the application of CenterPoint to adjust its System-
    • 00:36:38Wide Reliability Standards. Before you as a proposed
    • 00:36:42order. No corrections or exceptions were filed.
    • 00:36:45Chairman Gleeson filed a memo in this Docket. So I imagine
    • 00:36:48Commissioner Glotfelty was struck by
    • 00:36:52my memo. But, you know, as I say, generally,
    • 00:36:56I not want to deny an agreement,
    • 00:37:00but for the reasons stated in my memo, I don't believe that CenterPoint's
    • 00:37:03proposed changes to their system wide reliability standards are appropriate,
    • 00:37:07and I would deny CenterPoint's application.
    • Clip 19 - Commisssioner's thoughts on the Chairman's memo, 55361
      00:37:12 I was actually pleasantly surprised with your memo,
    • 00:37:15so I'm appreciative of it.
    • 00:37:19To me, this was a lawyer looking for something to do.
    • 00:37:22Quite frankly, I think, as you've laid out
    • 00:37:25in your memo, that if their data systems are getting better and more granular than
    • 00:37:29the, then the granularity of the filings and the
    • 00:37:32Sadie and Safi ought to get more granular. I believe that
    • 00:37:36this should be looked at not on a utility by utility
    • 00:37:40basis, but perhaps at some point in time next year, when the staff
    • 00:37:43has time looking at Satie and Safi and the other metrics
    • 00:37:47that we use to judge a utility by their reliability,
    • 00:37:51we ought to be looked at in totality. It's a good idea.
    • 00:37:56So I support the. I support your memo in denial.
    • 00:38:00I'm in agreement. Lawyers do really have to look for something to do sometimes,
    • 00:38:04but I don't think it's appropriate for a utility to
    • 00:38:07redefine our rules in a contested case. But I would
    • 00:38:11be open to opening it as rulemaking so that all utilities can have
    • 00:38:14their opinions heard for this.
    • 00:38:16Yeah, I agree. I think this is a policy decision, and it would be more
    • 00:38:20appropriate to do it in a rulemaking and also consistent with
    • 00:38:24looking at reliability as a whole across the state, I think is an excellent idea.
    • Clip 19 - Motion to deny CenterPoint's application, 55361
      00:38:29Okay. With that, I will entertain a motion to
    • 00:38:32deny CenterPoint's application consistent with my memo.
    • 00:38:36Second. Oh, I approve.
    • 00:38:39So moved. Second. Have a motion and a second. All those
    • 00:38:43in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails.
    • 00:38:49Shelah, I believe that will take us then to
    • 00:38:53Item No. 23. Will you lay out Item No. 23,
    • Clip 23 - Docket No. 56211; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-13232 – Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC for Authority to Change Rates
      00:38:56please? Yes. Item 23 is Docket No. 56211.
    • 00:39:02The application of CenterPoint for authority to change rates.
    • 00:39:06Oral argument was requested in this docket and the Commission voted to grant
    • 00:39:10oral argument. We have several parties that have signed
    • 00:39:13to speak. I'm going to take a brief look and just see if there's enough
    • 00:39:16room at this table for everyone. We've got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
    • 00:39:24We have eight separate parties that have signed up for oral argument.
    • 00:39:28So I don't know if that's enough room for everybody.
    • 00:39:32How about if I call up? Do you want me to call up one party
    • 00:39:34at a time or two parties at a time? Why don't we do two at
    • 00:39:36a time? Okay. And what is the time limit for this one? We'll do five
    • 00:39:39minutes for this. All right.
    • 00:39:43Chairman, Patrick Peters for CenterPoint Energy. We would request in accordance with the
    • 00:39:46Commission's Rule because we have the burden approved to open and close.
    • 00:39:51That works. All right.
    • 00:39:57Then we will start with CenterPoint, you ready?
    • Clip 23 - Patrick Peters - Associate General Counsel & VP at CenterPoint - Legal authority governing the Commission's decision & establishing good cause to extend their rate filing deadline, 56211
      00:40:02Yes. Thank you. All right. Thank you,
    • 00:40:05Chairman Gleeson and Commissioners. I'm Patrick Peters, Associate General Counsel and Vice
    • 00:40:09President at CenterPoint Energy. My remarks this morning will address
    • 00:40:12two areas. First, the legal authority governing the Commission's decision
    • 00:40:16here. And second, the circumstances that establish good cause
    • 00:40:19to extend the company's rate filing deadline.
    • 00:40:23The law governing the company's withdrawal of this rate case is straightforward.
    • 00:40:26There's no dispute that our withdrawal complied with the Commission's procedural.
    • 00:40:30And the ALJ found that there's also no dispute that the Commission
    • 00:40:34has the authority to extend utilities rate case filing deadline for good cause.
    • 00:40:38The ALJ also found that while the order in CenterPoint's last
    • 00:40:42rate case prevents the company from seeking an extension using what's called
    • 00:40:45the earnings off ramp, it doesn't say anything or in
    • 00:40:49any way prevent the company from requesting a good cause extension
    • 00:40:52under section B, three of the Commission's rule.
    • 00:40:56Based on these authorities, CenterPoint properly requested withdrawal. And the only
    • 00:41:00question before the Commission in this appeal is whether good cause exists
    • 00:41:04to extend the rate filing deadline. I'll now turn to the circumstances that
    • 00:41:08do establish good cause. For the past three months,
    • 00:41:11thousands of CenterPoint Energy employees have been laser focused on
    • 00:41:14transforming our company into the most resilient coastal grid in the country.
    • 00:41:19Our leaders have shared with you our progress. Phase one of the
    • 00:41:22Greater Houston Resiliency Initiative and our plans for phases
    • 00:41:25two and three in withdrawing this rate case,
    • 00:41:29the company seeks to maintain momentum so that it may complete this important resiliency
    • 00:41:33work. We will then incorporate the feedback received
    • 00:41:36from our customers, community leaders, from the independent after
    • 00:41:40action review, and from the commission's own investigation and report into
    • 00:41:44an updated rate filing to be made in the second quarter of 2025.
    • 00:41:49This is very similar to the approach that's being used for the company's system
    • 00:41:52resiliency plan, and we believe that it will yield similar benefits.
    • 00:41:57Contrary to parties assertion that granting this request would somehow open the floodgates
    • 00:42:01to other requests by utilities, these truly are extraordinary
    • 00:42:04circumstances, much like those following winter Storm Yuri,
    • 00:42:08when the Commission also granted a good cause extension to Oncor's
    • 00:42:12rate filing deadline. The citigroups and TCA
    • 00:42:16claim that the company is over earning by $100 million and as
    • 00:42:19a result, the Commission should not find good cause or in the alternative,
    • 00:42:24should set interim rates. CenterPoint is not over earning.
    • 00:42:27The last several earnings monitoring reports filed by the company indicate this
    • 00:42:31fact, and the company's testimony and other evidence in this rate
    • 00:42:35case in fact demonstrate that the company should
    • 00:42:38receive a $60 million rate increase.
    • 00:42:42Moreover, party's litigation positions in the rate case on the issues
    • 00:42:46include cutting significant amounts from the company's vegetation
    • 00:42:49management budget, disallowing capital investments in resiliency
    • 00:42:53and storm partnering projects. These are exactly the kinds of
    • 00:42:56things the company needs to be doing to meet our customers expectations and
    • 00:43:00be well prepared for the next storm.
    • 00:43:04For these reasons and those stated in our briefing, along with the supporting
    • 00:43:07comments from the Commission Staff, OPUC and a joint pleading with
    • 00:43:11staff and filings from the IBEW. CenterPoint respectfully
    • 00:43:15requests that the Commission grant this appeal allow the company an opportunity
    • 00:43:19to maintain momentum on completing important resiliency improvements
    • 00:43:22before the next storm season. And then we will bring forward
    • 00:43:26for you and for the parties to consider an updated rate filing package in the
    • 00:43:29second quarter of 2025 that incorporates the findings and learnings
    • 00:43:33from Hurricane Beryl. Thank you and I'll reserve the rest of my time for closing.
    • 00:43:38All right, you have a minute and 25 remaining.
    • 00:43:43The next party that signed up is Thomas Brocato on behalf of
    • 00:43:46GCCC, which is likely Gulf Coast
    • 00:43:50Cities Coalition. I'll let him say the party name.
    • Clip 23 - Thomas Brocato - GCCC - Proceeding with rate case, 56211
      00:44:04 Good morning Commissioners. It's Thomas Brocato on behalf of the Gulf Coast Coalition of
    • 00:44:08Cities. There is no reason and certainly no good cause
    • 00:44:12to postpone this rate case any further.
    • 00:44:14Customers are being overcharged millions of dollars each month.
    • 00:44:18This case gets delayed. Your staff and
    • 00:44:22the cities each submitted testimony demonstrating that a significant rate increase
    • 00:44:26is appropriate. Seven years ago, the legislature
    • 00:44:30recognized that with the increase of piecemeal rate making proceedings,
    • 00:44:33TDUs would have little need to ever initiate a base rate case.
    • 00:44:37They directed the Commission to adopt a rule establishing a schedule
    • 00:44:41requiring TDUs to file every four years. CenterPoint was
    • 00:44:46required under the rule to file this case. Additionally,
    • 00:44:49in CenterPoint's last case, the order specifically required it to come in.
    • 00:44:53Now, CenterPoint sought to delay the filing, but in
    • 00:44:57February, you rejected a settlement of the
    • 00:45:00stakeholders and you directed them to file in March.
    • 00:45:04Specifically, you rejected their argument that they needed
    • 00:45:07more time to prepare the case. You have twice now
    • 00:45:11ruled that CenterPoint's application should not be delayed.
    • 00:45:15Discovery was conducted. Testimony and rebuttal
    • 00:45:18testimony has all been filed. The testimony supports
    • 00:45:21a significant rate decrease, and that is not surprising given
    • 00:45:25that CenterPoint has filed over 30 piecemeal rate
    • 00:45:29increases since its last base rate case,
    • 00:45:3230 in a brazen act,
    • 00:45:35despite having no legal authority to do so and alerting no
    • 00:45:39one, CenterPoint filed a three sentence filing unilaterally
    • 00:45:43announcing it was walking away as though they were doing the commission
    • 00:45:46and ratepayers a favor. But they knew what they were doing.
    • 00:45:50CenterPoint knows this is a rate
    • 00:45:53decrease case. They didn't request to withdraw.
    • 00:45:57They didn't even attempt to demonstrate good costs supported withdrawal.
    • 00:46:02Contrary to Mr. Peters comments,
    • 00:46:05their argument that they need to focus on resiliency is self serving
    • 00:46:09and misleading. All the work has been done. Just 14
    • 00:46:13days before it filed its withdrawal, CenterPoint requested an abatement
    • 00:46:17of the schedule, saying, quote, the parties have been in active settlement discussions
    • 00:46:20for several weeks. It is now October.
    • 00:46:24Hurricane season is hopefully ending. This is the perfect
    • 00:46:28time to complete this case. I urge the commission to
    • 00:46:32direct the parties to restart settlement negotiations and
    • 00:46:36promptly resolve this matter. In contrast,
    • 00:46:39CenterPoint's proposal to refile next June is absurd
    • 00:46:43for several reasons. First and foremost, it would be in the middle
    • 00:46:47of the 2025 hurricane season, which is what we're trying to avoid in the
    • 00:46:50first place. Second, it would allow the company to continue to overcharge
    • 00:46:54customers another. Third, you've already rejected the
    • 00:46:58notion that CenterPoint needs six months to prepare a case, and the
    • 00:47:02idea that they have to use a calendar year test year is also unpersuasive.
    • 00:47:06It is undisputed that CenterPoint failed miserably in
    • 00:47:10their response to Hurricane Beryl. You have heard from the legislature
    • 00:47:14and the public that CenterPoint must improve the quality of service,
    • 00:47:17but that is separate from this rate case.
    • 00:47:20As ALJ noted, CenterPoint has given no explanation on
    • 00:47:24how pursuing its resiliency initiative, launched four
    • 00:47:28days after its notice of withdrawal was filed,
    • 00:47:31interferes with its ability to proceed in this matter.
    • 00:47:34Allowing CenterPoint to withdraw this application would
    • 00:47:37set a dangerous precedent, allowing a utility who is required
    • 00:47:41to be here to simply walk away when things don't go well.
    • 00:47:45It would also deprive the Commission of its ability to regularly evaluate
    • 00:47:48CenterPoint's cost of service and perhaps most importantly, would deprive
    • 00:47:52ratepayers of the rate reduction that they're entitled to.
    • 00:47:55At a minimum, if the commission did decide to
    • 00:47:59permit CenterPoint to withdraw and delay this rate application,
    • 00:48:03we would urge you to establish interim rates so that rate payers don't continue
    • 00:48:08to be overcharged. I would also note, I think I've
    • 00:48:12addressed most of Mr. Peters comments that I'd like to, but I did want to
    • 00:48:15note that the EMR is by no means dispositive over,
    • 00:48:19well with respect to whether the utility is over earning or not.
    • 00:48:22If that were the case, we'd never have rate cases. We would simply
    • 00:48:25file emrs and go down, go on down the road in terms
    • 00:48:29of adjusting rates.
    • 00:48:34That concludes my comments. Thank you.
    • 00:48:37I think I have two questions. So when you say rates, rate decrease,
    • 00:48:41can you clarify that? Are you saying a decrease from the proposed
    • 00:48:45rates in the rate filing package, or are you talking about decreasing
    • 00:48:48rates from where they are today? Existing rates?
    • Clip 23 - Chairman Gleeson to Thomas Brocato - Rates, 56211
      00:48:51 Our testimony both
    • 00:48:56is the answer. Our testimony supports
    • 00:48:59a rate decrease from existing rates as well as
    • 00:49:03a decrease from their proposed $60 million increase.
    • 00:49:06Okay. And then I think in your response to
    • 00:49:09their request to withdraw, you said that if
    • 00:49:13we allowed them to withdraw, the cities would be forced to
    • 00:49:17lower CenterPoint's rates. Do you remember that
    • 00:49:21in your. I don't think we quite that directly. I didn't
    • 00:49:25intend to sort of threaten the Commission in that way,
    • 00:49:28no. And I didn't take it as a threat. I would say, what, what do
    • 00:49:30you see that process as being like? Well, I mean, we have
    • 00:49:34great respect for the Commission and understand that ultimately this Commission sets,
    • 00:49:38you know, has the final word on anything that cities do.
    • 00:49:42I believe, if I recall correctly, just simply
    • 00:49:46noting cities have original jurisdiction over rates and services and,
    • 00:49:49you know, they do have the ability to adjust rates. Of course, that can be
    • 00:49:52appealed back to this Commission where, again, you would have
    • 00:49:56the final say, and we're certainly mindful of that.
    • 00:50:01But that's how it would occur, if it were to occur.
    • 00:50:05But again, we're going to be respectful and definitely the Commission.
    • 00:50:10Commissioners, questions? Okay,
    • 00:50:13thank you. All right, next up is Brad Bailiff on
    • 00:50:17behalf of IBEW.
    • Clip 23 - Brad Bailiff - IBEW Local Union 66 - Granting appeal on Order No. 14, 56211
      00:50:26 Good morning Commissioners. My name is Brad Bailiff. I am
    • 00:50:29representing IBEW Local Union 66.
    • 00:50:33IBEW has represented skilled trade workers in the electric
    • 00:50:36industry for over 130 years. Currently has
    • 00:50:40over 4850 members
    • 00:50:44working in generation, maintenance and operating operation of
    • 00:50:47the grid with other trades.
    • 00:50:50IBEW members working for CenterPoint and its contractors are
    • 00:50:55on the front lines of CenterPoint's response to the storm
    • 00:50:58events this year. ALJ Siano,
    • 00:51:03in Order No. 14, noted the Commission may grant an exception
    • 00:51:06when good cause has been shown to its rules and
    • 00:51:11he found that that was insufficient. The workers of
    • 00:51:14IBEW Local 66 have seen the dedication
    • 00:51:18and the hard work to improve the resiliency and are now
    • 00:51:22part of all those efforts. Mr. Peters
    • 00:51:25identified them in his discussion. They've identified them in their appeal
    • 00:51:29as well. I won't repeat those.
    • 00:51:33I'll stress that improved resiliency is a top priority
    • 00:51:38for legislators and government leaders. It's a top priority
    • 00:51:42for customers, and it's also important to this Commission.
    • 00:51:46The IBEW members are part of those efforts and have
    • 00:51:50seen the progress that we've been making on those important goals and
    • 00:51:57the claim that all the work is all done.
    • 00:52:00It's not. There are six vice presidents of CenterPoint,
    • 00:52:05I believe, who have nothing filed their rebuttal testimony.
    • 00:52:09Starting back over would require them to prepare updated
    • 00:52:12rebuttal testimony to respond to discovery and
    • 00:52:16to go through the process. Mr. Brocato talked about reestablishing
    • 00:52:21settlement talks and requiring those,
    • 00:52:24I think necessarily you need to deny the,
    • 00:52:29you need to grant the appeal of Order No. 14.
    • 00:52:32Allow them to withdraw and direct them because of
    • 00:52:35your timing that's involved here.
    • 00:52:39Granting the appeal allows CenterPoint to continue its focus on
    • 00:52:42resiliency and restoring the public trust.
    • 00:52:46And requiring a proceeding to establish interim
    • 00:52:50rates is not inefficient and requires much of the same work
    • 00:52:55that would be done to actually go through the rate case process and
    • 00:52:59I think would be unproductive. So IBEW Local 66
    • 00:53:03does support CenterPoint's appeal. Encourages the Commission to
    • 00:53:07find good cause exists to grant it. Also, the Commission should require
    • 00:53:11CenterPoint to file its comprehensive rate case
    • 00:53:16application by June 30. Thank you.
    • 00:53:19Thank you. Commissioners, questions? Thank you.
    • 00:53:22Thank you, Chairman. Next up is Michael McMillin on behalf of TIEC.
    • Clip 23 - Michael McMillin - TIEC - Potential precedential effect of withdrawal of rate case, 56211
      00:53:31 Good morning Commissioners. Michael McMillin for Texas Industrial Energy Consumers.
    • 00:53:36TIEC does not take a position on the request
    • 00:53:39to withdraw this case. We are concerned
    • 00:53:43about the potential precedential effect of this.
    • 00:53:46What we really don't want to have happen at the end of this is to
    • 00:53:50create an implication that a utility that's required to
    • 00:53:53file a rate case under the Commission's rules can then just decide
    • 00:53:57to withdraw that case. And, you know, that gives the impression that
    • 00:54:00they've complied with the rule when in fact the
    • 00:54:04purpose of it is to have a rate case. So to
    • 00:54:08the extent that the Commission does allow CenterPoint to
    • 00:54:12withdraw this case, the order should be very clear that,
    • 00:54:15that the Commission's not granting or not allowing CenterPoint to
    • 00:54:19unilaterally withdraw, but instead is construing its
    • 00:54:23later pleadings where it discusses good cause and extraordinary circumstances
    • 00:54:27as a request to withdraw and that
    • 00:54:30there's finds good cause based on extraordinary circumstances.
    • 00:54:34Just put simply, we the Commission should make sure that if
    • 00:54:38they allow CenterPoint to withdraw, they make it clear that
    • 00:54:41this is an exceptional case and not something that utilities
    • 00:54:45can do in the future. Commissioners, questions?
    • 00:54:48Do you believe the order should also spell out
    • 00:54:52when we would want them to refile? I think that
    • 00:54:56that would be wise, Commissioner. Because, you know, then we have a date
    • 00:55:00certain on which they will come back and so it's effectively
    • 00:55:04a good cause extension and then you refile. Okay,
    • 00:55:07thank you. All right, the next
    • 00:55:11party is, let's see. TCUC Sergio
    • 00:55:15Herrera.
    • Clip 23 - Sergio Herrera - TCUC - Deny CenterPoint's appeal of SOAH Oder No. 14, 56211
      00:55:33 Good morning Commissioners. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners Sergio Herrera, on behalf of
    • 00:55:36TCUC. TCUC would echo the comments and concerns raised
    • 00:55:40by Mr. Brocato and similarly urges this Commission
    • 00:55:44to deny CenterPoint's appeal of SOAH Order No. 14 and require CenterPoint
    • 00:55:48to continue with the rate case filed in docket 56211.
    • 00:55:53Judge Siano's Order No. 14 correctly harmonized this Commission's
    • 00:55:56rules. Section section 25.247 and
    • 00:56:01section 22.181 g one by concluding that
    • 00:56:04section 22.181 g one does not operate
    • 00:56:08where the utilities application was filed under compulsion,
    • 00:56:11as is the case with CenterPoint here. Moreover,
    • 00:56:15as both Mr. Brocato and Mr. McMillin
    • 00:56:18pointed out, allowing CenterPoint to unilaterally withdraw
    • 00:56:22its application would set a dangerous precedent going forward that would,
    • 00:56:25in essence, provide a get out of jail free card to
    • 00:56:30utilities that have been compelled to come in and file a rate case under
    • 00:56:34the commission's rules. For example, if in a future rate case where
    • 00:56:37a utility has been compelled to come in under the Commission's rules and the parties
    • 00:56:41put on evidence demonstrating that a rate decrease or even a no increase
    • 00:56:45in rates is warranted, so long as the utility had not
    • 00:56:48yet filed or put on its direct case at a hearing on the merits,
    • 00:56:52then that utility could more easily withdraw its application,
    • 00:56:55effectively denying ratepayers, the rate relief to which they'd be entitled.
    • 00:57:00Lastly, as Mr. Brocato
    • 00:57:04has also touched on, CenterPoint cites hurricane burial
    • 00:57:07restoration efforts as good cause for withdrawal of its application.
    • 00:57:11Notably however, CenterPoint did not raise any good cause rationale
    • 00:57:15until it filed its appeal of SOAH Order No. 14.
    • 00:57:18Hurricane Beryl made landfall nearly four months ago. And while the importance
    • 00:57:22of the restoration efforts is not lost on TCUC or
    • 00:57:26any of the other city groups, we are now at the tail end of October.
    • 00:57:30Accordingly, CenterPoint should now well be capable of continuing
    • 00:57:33with its restoration efforts and moving forward with this raid case.
    • 00:57:38Therefore, TCUC respectfully urges the Commission to deny the
    • 00:57:43appeal of SOAH Order No. 14 and require CenterPoint to continue with
    • 00:57:46this rate case. Thank you very much. Thank you.
    • 00:57:49Questions? All right, next up is
    • 00:57:53Alton Hall on behalf of HCC.
    • Clip 23 - Alton Hall - Houston Coalition of Cities - Deny CenterPoint's appeal of ALJ's order, 56211
      00:58:13 Good morning Mr. Chair, Commissioners. My name is Alton Hall.
    • 00:58:17I'm with the law firm of Adams and Reeds in Houston, and I'm here
    • 00:58:21on behalf of the Houston Coalition of Cities.
    • 00:58:25We support the comments
    • 00:58:30previously given by Mr. Brocato and Mr. Herrera.
    • 00:58:34And we certainly ask that this Commission
    • 00:58:38deny CenterPoint's appeal of the ALJ's
    • 00:58:42order denying their motion to withdraw.
    • 00:58:45I'm not going to regurgitate some of the things that have already been said.
    • 00:58:48As I said, we support the comments of my colleagues.
    • 00:58:52But there are a few points that I would like to address,
    • 00:58:55including a few responses to comments made by CenterPoint
    • 00:58:59and counsel for IBEW. But first,
    • 00:59:03let me state, I think it's really important to understand what it
    • 00:59:06is we're requesting. We're requesting simply that
    • 00:59:10you maintain the status quo.
    • 00:59:14That case, the CenterPoint rate case, was already
    • 00:59:17in abatement. The parties were engaged in settlement discussions.
    • 00:59:23We're simply asking that the Commission deny
    • 00:59:26the appeal so that we can go back to that. The testimony,
    • 00:59:3199% of testimony already been filed. You heard something about some
    • 00:59:34rebuttal testimony that could be put off. It was already
    • 00:59:37abated while we were talking. We could continue those discussions
    • 00:59:41and see if we can reach a resolution of this rate
    • 00:59:45case that has so many resources already expended.
    • 00:59:49That is what we're asking in our opposition
    • 00:59:53to CenterPoint's motion and in the position that we've
    • 00:59:56taken in this case. That creates
    • 01:00:00no harm to CenterPoint. I think the counsel for IBEW
    • 01:00:04talked about those rebuttal witnesses. As I said,
    • 01:00:07that can be abated, that can be put to the side. Also, we don't
    • 01:00:11have a procedural schedule for a hearing right now because it's an abatement.
    • 01:00:14So we could set the procedural schedule in a way by agreement
    • 01:00:18that allows CenterPoint to still come back and have those
    • 01:00:23witnesses file at a time that's appropriate, a time that fits their
    • 01:00:27schedule. So that's not an issue. That's not good cause
    • 01:00:31to justify a withdrawal of this case.
    • 01:00:35If you grant CenterPoint's motion,
    • 01:00:39ratepayers will be significantly harmed.
    • 01:00:42The overwhelming evidence, as Mr. Brocato said
    • 01:00:46in this case, from practically all the intervenors,
    • 01:00:49shows a significant rate decrease is justified.
    • 01:00:54We could go back to those discussions and see if we can reach some resolution
    • 01:00:57on that with CenterPoint. But if you grant their
    • 01:01:02withdrawal and they come back and they're proposing with the
    • 01:01:06case next year, I think we all know what's going to happen.
    • 01:01:10That's going to be a case where, with all the things that have happened since
    • 01:01:142023, which was a test year for the rate case,
    • 01:01:18CenterPoint will come back in with a case that would,
    • 01:01:21in their minds, justify a rate increase. And so we'd be starting all over,
    • 01:01:25number one. Number two, ratepayers will
    • 01:01:28have lost all that time and all that
    • 01:01:34opportunity to get rate reductions between now and the time of that next rate
    • 01:01:38case, and a final order in that next rate case, which will
    • 01:01:41be even further into the future. So Centerpoint would be allowed,
    • 01:01:45by having their motion granted, to effectively
    • 01:01:49continue to over earn, continue to overcharge ratepayers.
    • 01:01:53And right now in the City of Houston, I live in the City of Houston.
    • 01:01:56That's not what we need. We've just gone through
    • 01:02:00borough and we have other issues. So rate relief,
    • 01:02:03if it's something that's warranted and can be achieved through the
    • 01:02:07settlement process, as we were proposing, is something that would
    • 01:02:10benefit, not harm ratepayers.
    • 01:02:13CenterPoint, Mr. Peters,
    • 01:02:18raised a point about their right to an extension. They're asking for an
    • 01:02:21extension of their rate filing. They're asking for
    • 01:02:25withdrawal of this case. They asked for an extension
    • 01:02:28previously. And an important point there is that they knew that
    • 01:02:32they had to have the approval and the agreement of all of
    • 01:02:36the signatories to their settlement agreement in the last case,
    • 01:02:41because that settlement agreement and the Commission's final order
    • 01:02:45required that they file when they did in this case.
    • 01:02:48And so they got agreement of all the parties at that time. The Commission said
    • 01:02:52no. So if they were to come back and ask for an extension, as they're
    • 01:02:56trying to somehow characterize this, they would have to
    • 01:02:59get those agreements again from all the parties. They don't have it.
    • 01:03:03So they couldn't get an extension. Their only vehicle is this
    • 01:03:07motion to dismiss, and that's why that's before you. As opposed to an extension,
    • 01:03:12it should be denied. There's no basis
    • 01:03:15for it, and there's no benefit
    • 01:03:20to ratepayers from denial of the motion.
    • 01:03:24Granting the motion is harm to the ratepayers. So for that reason,
    • 01:03:27we simply ask again that you deny senator Point's appeal,
    • 01:03:31which basically would deny their motion to
    • 01:03:35withdraw. Thank you. Commissioners, questions?
    • 01:03:39So we held a Commission Hearing
    • 01:03:42in Houston a few weeks ago. I know. Did you have an opportunity to watch
    • 01:03:45that? Unfortunately, I was not there,
    • 01:03:48Chairman. I was in an Atlanta. But I did get
    • 01:03:51an update from the city. One of the reasons we wanted to do that was
    • 01:03:54to hear directly from Houstonians, many of whom came out to talk
    • 01:03:58to us. And one of the themes we heard
    • 01:04:01was that the citizens of
    • 01:04:04Houston wanted us to be able to evaluate
    • 01:04:08CenterPoint's performance during Beryl. One way
    • 01:04:12to do that is to allow them to withdraw this case and then
    • 01:04:17force them to file sometime in 2025 with the 2024
    • 01:04:21test year, where we could hear evidence put on about performance
    • 01:04:25during Beryl, you know, and their infrastructure
    • 01:04:28improvements and all of that. Do you see any benefit
    • 01:04:32to that? And if so, do you. Do you think that benefit is just outweighed
    • 01:04:35by the delay or you know, because part of
    • 01:04:39the reason we wanted to delay this decision until after that is because I thought
    • 01:04:42it was important to hear from Houstonians, and that's one of the things we did
    • 01:04:45here. So I will say I worry that
    • 01:04:49if we make a decision in a rate case that doesn't also include
    • 01:04:532024 with barrel performance, that Houstonians
    • 01:04:57will not be satisfied with that either.
    • Clip 23 - Chairman to Alton Hall - Evaluating CenterPoint's performance during Hurricane Beryl, 56211
      01:05:01 Your Honor, I have a couple of responses. And I
    • 01:05:04think that you received a letter from
    • 01:05:08the Mayor of the City of Houston, and I think these are consistent
    • 01:05:12with the comments in that letter. We certainly
    • 01:05:17support having centerpoint work
    • 01:05:21on restoration resiliency issues and
    • 01:05:26addressing those in a way that has meaningful impact to
    • 01:05:30the customers. However, I do not
    • 01:05:33see. You asked whether I thought it was overweight.
    • 01:05:36Well, first, I don't see that the two are mutually inconsistent.
    • 01:05:41I don't see why continuing settlement
    • 01:05:45discussions on this rate case on a 2023
    • 01:05:49test year, which is what they file and what the
    • 01:05:53commission's rules required them to file, would be inconsistent
    • 01:05:58with having them continue to do
    • 01:06:01what they've been instructed to do by the Governor, by this Commission,
    • 01:06:04to look at their resiliency, their restoration efforts,
    • 01:06:08and improve those. I think you could. This very narrow
    • 01:06:13issue that we're asking to go ahead and continue the
    • 01:06:17current rate case and have these discussions is
    • 01:06:22not inconsistent with what it is that you went down to Houston to
    • 01:06:26discuss. I think actually they're consistent and they're supportive of
    • 01:06:29one another because in the interim,
    • 01:06:33while CenterPoint is trying to determine what
    • 01:06:36it needs to do with regard to borough restoration
    • 01:06:40efforts and some other things I know that they're looking at,
    • 01:06:44I think any benefit
    • 01:06:49that ratepayers can get should be
    • 01:06:53at the top of that list. I'm sure
    • 01:06:57in those comments, because I've heard them, you heard a lot of people say,
    • 01:07:01why are we paying such high rates? And yet
    • 01:07:05we still had outages. Why are we paying such
    • 01:07:08high rates? And we're not seeing any difference in our service from all these investments
    • 01:07:13that CenterPoint has been including in the DCRFs. That's what
    • 01:07:16I, we hear from a lot of citizens. One way to address that
    • 01:07:20is to say if a rate decrease
    • 01:07:24is warranted based on the test year that was presented in this case,
    • 01:07:29let's put some rates into effect, even if it's on an interim basis
    • 01:07:34until that next rate case, or as we
    • 01:07:37propose, simply finalizing that case and continue
    • 01:07:41to work on, on improving reliability, improving resiliency,
    • 01:07:49that would be my response. Thank you.
    • 01:07:53Thank you. The next party is REP
    • 01:07:56Coalition Cathy Webking.
    • Clip 23 - Cathy Webking - REP Coalition - Potential denial could lead to additional intervener discovery, 56211
      01:08:10 Commissioners, Cathy Webking on behalf of the REP Coalition. In this case,
    • 01:08:14we do not take a position on the granting or denial of the
    • 01:08:18actual dismissal, but we do have concerns that if
    • 01:08:22the dismissal is denied, that there be an opportunity
    • 01:08:26for additional intervener discovery and then testimony to
    • 01:08:30accomplish the concerns with regard to the
    • 01:08:34assets that would be rolled into rate base. In this case,
    • 01:08:38there's an apparent failure for those assets to provide continuous and adequate
    • 01:08:42service, and that should be reviewed before
    • 01:08:46those assets are approved as prudent in rate base.
    • 01:08:50And so that would be our position in this case.
    • 01:08:54Commissioners questions? Are you talking about something specific?
    • 01:09:00Not at this time, no. Our understanding is the Commission has
    • 01:09:03an investigation ongoing. There are very
    • 01:09:07skilled minds looking at these things. It's my understanding, and they're
    • 01:09:12just concerns. There's a lot of rate base to be rolled in
    • 01:09:15from the last rate case.
    • 01:09:19Thank you. Thank you. Next party is Commission Staff,
    • 01:09:23Kelsey Daugherty.
    • Clip 23 - Kelsey Daugherty - Commission Staff - Allowing CenterPoint to withdraw, 56211
      01:09:36 Good morning Commissioners. Kelsey Daugherty for Commission Staff. Staff maintains
    • 01:09:41its position that CenterPoint should be allowed to withdraw given the
    • 01:09:44circumstances. Thank you for your time.
    • 01:09:48Questions for Staff? Thank you.
    • 01:09:53All right, then.
    • 01:09:58CenterPoint has remaining a minute and 25 seconds.
    • 01:10:01This clock will not allow me to have seconds,
    • 01:10:05so give me a moment to do this on my phone
    • 01:10:09manually.
    • Clip 23 - Patrick Peters - CenterPoint - Closing remarks, 56211
      01:10:14All right, you may begin. Thank you. Just a couple points of
    • 01:10:17response on the over earning argument. I mentioned some of the positions parties
    • 01:10:21have taken in support of their claim that we're over earning.
    • 01:10:24Vegetation management, storm hardening, these are things the company needs
    • 01:10:28to be doing. They've also got $45 million in expenses that
    • 01:10:31they're challenging. That's really more about extending the recovery period,
    • 01:10:35depreciation, prior storm costs. That doesn't mean that
    • 01:10:38we're over earning. It's just parties wanting to push those costs into the future.
    • 01:10:42Then I'll make a few comments on process as well.
    • 01:10:45TIEC raised some concerns about a unilateral withdrawal.
    • 01:10:48The company understands those concerns and is explicitly asking you
    • 01:10:52to grant good cause to its rate filing deadline. For the reasons that
    • 01:10:56we've explained. The six witnesses who have not yet filed rebuttal,
    • 01:10:59the reason they haven't is because those are six vps of electric
    • 01:11:03operations, transmission operations, distribution operations,
    • 01:11:07electric engineering. They are focused on phase two of
    • 01:11:10the resiliency initiative as we speak.
    • 01:11:13But really, what this is about more than the rate case
    • 01:11:16and the time of those folks having to divert attention from the resiliency initiative
    • 01:11:20to the rate case. What this is really about is allowing us to take
    • 01:11:23the learnings from Hurricane Beryl and incorporate them into a new
    • 01:11:27filing that has the benefit of that. The customers feedback
    • 01:11:30we got in Houston in October, your own feedback, and present that
    • 01:11:35to you and the parties in the second quarter of next year. We appreciate your
    • 01:11:38time this morning. Thank you. Any questions for CenterPoint?
    • 01:11:44Okay, thank you.
    • Clip 23 - Chairman asks for decision to be made at next Open Meeting, 56211
      01:11:49 So I think initially I had hoped to come here
    • 01:11:53to make a decision on this. You know,
    • 01:11:57I think, as you can probably tell from the questions I asked,
    • 01:12:00I'm not prepared yet. I think we need to make a decision on this at
    • 01:12:04the next open meeting. No later than the next open meeting.
    • 01:12:07But I still have some things I need to work through because I'm
    • 01:12:11still not sure which way to come down on this, honestly, because I think there
    • 01:12:14are really good points on both sides. And I
    • 01:12:18think I would say what I heard in Houston.
    • 01:12:21I think we heard both sides of this.
    • 01:12:24And so I'd like just the next couple weeks to continue
    • 01:12:28to work through this, but I think we have to commit to make a decision
    • 01:12:31on this at the next open meeting. I'm supportive
    • 01:12:35of that. Supportive as well. Okay.
    • 01:12:41All right. Shelah, I believe that will bring us to item number 25.
    • 01:12:46Will you lay out item number 25, please?
    • Clip 25 - Docket No. 56413 – Application of AEP Texas Inc. to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for the Alamito Creek-to-Fort Davis 138-kV Transmission Line in Presidio and Jeff Davis Counties
      01:12:50 Item 25 is Docket No. 56413.
    • 01:12:54The application of AEP Texas to amend its CCN
    • 01:12:58for the Alamedo Creek to Fort Davis,
    • 01:13:01138-kV transmission line in Presidio and
    • 01:13:04Jeff Davis Counties. Before you is a revised proposed order.
    • 01:13:08Chairman Gleeson filed a memo.
    • 01:13:12So the memo just recommends two changes
    • 01:13:16to two findings of fact. And so I'd recommend approving
    • 01:13:19the revised proposed order, but happy to take any questions or comments.
    • 01:13:24I'm supportive as well.
    • Clip 25 - Motion to approve revised proposed order, 56413
      01:13:27Supportive? Supportive. Okay. I will entertain a motion to
    • 01:13:31approve the revised proposed order consistent with my memo.
    • 01:13:34So moved. I second. Have a motion and a second. All those in
    • 01:13:37favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion prevail.
    • 01:13:43All right. Shelah, that'll take us to item number
    • 01:13:4727. Will you lay out item number 27, please?
    • Clip 27 - Docket No. 56545; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-18029 – Application of Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC for Approval of a System Resiliency Plan
      01:13:50Yes. Item 27 is Docket 56545,
    • 01:13:55the application of Oncor for approval of a system resiliency
    • 01:13:59plan. Before you is a revised proposed order.
    • 01:14:02And I filed a memo recommending changes to the
    • 01:14:05final order. And Commissioner Glotfelty filed a memo in this docket.
    • 01:14:09Thank you, Shelah. Commissioner Glotfelty, would you like to lay out your memo?
    • Clip 27 - Commissioner Glotfelty lays out his memo, 56545
      01:14:13I appreciate it. My memo basically says
    • 01:14:16that this is the first resiliency plan that we are undertaking.
    • 01:14:21I would like a little bit more time. I'd like we get
    • 01:14:25the honor of having the company answer
    • 01:14:29some questions today to take that back and make a final decision next time.
    • 01:14:33I know that it is over the legislatively
    • 01:14:36mandated deadline, but I think being the first one.
    • 01:14:41And secondly, I think since my memo was
    • 01:14:44filed or prior to that, with the absence of Commissioner
    • 01:14:47Cobos, she should have the ability to have thoughts on
    • 01:14:51this. And therefore, I would encourage us to postpone the
    • 01:14:55final decision until next meeting.
    • 01:14:58Yeah, I'd say I'm good with that. I think, you know, we can ask our
    • 01:15:01questions today, and then if she. When she comes back at the next open meeting,
    • 01:15:04if she has questions, she can ask them at that time. Sounds good.
    • 01:15:08Okay,
    • 01:15:12so I want to call up Oncor to give
    • 01:15:16us an overview of the system resiliency plan.
    • 01:15:20Yes.
    • 01:15:30Good morning Chairman, Commissioners. Tab Urbantke, Outside Counsel
    • 01:15:34for Oncor. I have here with me today Brian Lloyd, Vice President of
    • 01:15:38Regulatory Policy, and Ellen Buck, Vice President of Business
    • 01:15:42and Operations. We also have other folks here that
    • 01:15:46are welcome here, available to answer your
    • 01:15:49questions. We are on your time, and so however you'd like us to proceed,
    • 01:15:53we're happy to do that. We have a brief presentation and some visuals that
    • 01:15:57might help, hopefully take some of
    • 01:16:01the density out of this, if you'd like. It's up to you guys.
    • 01:16:03Yeah, why don't we do that? Mister Lloyd, if you want to go through your
    • Clip 27 - Brian Lloyd - VP of Regulatory Policy, Oncor - Wildfire System Resiliency Plan, 56545
      01:16:07presentation, then we can ask questions sure Thank you,
    • 01:16:10Commissioners. For the record, I'm Brian Lloyd, Vice President of Regulatory Policy
    • 01:16:13for Oncor. I just want to note that behind us here is Matt Henry,
    • 01:16:17Oncor's, SVP and General Counsel. And Matt's really here today on
    • 01:16:20behalf of our CEO Alan Nye, our CEO Jim Greer and our entire
    • 01:16:24senior leadership team. They're very excited about this plan that we have
    • 01:16:27before you today. We do appreciate y'all's consideration
    • 01:16:31of the settlement today. As we noted in our letter offering the
    • 01:16:34presentation, we have a great opportunity that we
    • 01:16:37didn't think we'd have when we filed this plan. And that's really a function
    • 01:16:41of the work that all the parties, particularly I
    • 01:16:44want to know, your commission staff that worked very hard. They did a
    • 01:16:48thorough review of this case. Let me assure you of that. But they did
    • 01:16:51it quick. And because we were able to reach a
    • 01:16:55constructive settlement here with the parties as we saw their concerns,
    • 01:16:58what it does is it gives us the opportunity to bring forward some of
    • 01:17:02the spend into this year. And that spend that particularly we are looking at
    • 01:17:06is wildfire related spend. As we noted in the letter that we
    • 01:17:10have an opportunity to merge some of this with our other normal
    • 01:17:14annual wildfire efforts. So the sooner you are ready to approve this, the sooner we
    • 01:17:18can go. And we are ready to go. We have had red flag days
    • 01:17:21on our system this week. The state is dry. We know that. We are ready
    • 01:17:25to go to further address that risk as soon as you are comfortable with
    • 01:17:29us doing so. We do believe the settlement is in
    • 01:17:33the public interest. We think it benefits all of the stakeholders, but the ones we're
    • 01:17:36most excited about are our customers. We think we have a suite of
    • 01:17:40resiliency measures here that meaningfully tackles the wide range of risks
    • 01:17:43that we see across our system in the proactive and systematic
    • 01:17:47way that House Bill 2555 envisioned. And that
    • 01:17:51I want to pause there for a second because that bill really does provide the
    • 01:17:55first framework this state has ever had for us to do. Forward looking
    • 01:17:58distribution planning. You guys see transmission ccns,
    • 01:18:01but you don't see the work and the planning on the distribution grid,
    • 01:18:05really until you have a rate case here. And we are excited about the
    • 01:18:08opportunity to reach alignment with all of our stakeholders
    • 01:18:11and you all as we launch this work.
    • 01:18:15As you know, Oncor is the largest transmission distribution
    • 01:18:18utility in the state, probably this hemisphere.
    • 01:18:21And we have a service territory that is equal in size to the state of
    • 01:18:25New York. But we have a diverse set of risks, more so
    • 01:18:28than New York. We have ice storms, we have windstorms,
    • 01:18:32lightning issues, we have severe heat.
    • 01:18:35We have severe cold across parts of our system. We have tornadoes.
    • 01:18:39And as I mentioned, we have wildfires, as well as the other systemic
    • 01:18:43physical and cybersecurity risks that are a growing threat landscape
    • 01:18:46for utilities nationwide. With the help of our consultants,
    • 01:18:49what we did and the way we went about this process is
    • 01:18:53to do an intensely data driven and granular approach to tackling
    • 01:18:56those risks. We have, in essence, mapped our entire distribution
    • 01:19:00system against the extreme weather events that we have seen since 1998
    • 01:19:05and the actual customer outages we have seen from those events
    • 01:19:09from the last decade. We have then used our internal encore
    • 01:19:13wildfire modeling system to identify where our biggest wildfire risks
    • 01:19:17currently exist. We've used an independent wildfire expert to validate that approach
    • 01:19:21and help us develop that portion of the plan. And then,
    • 01:19:25as the plan lays out, we've looked at again this threat landscape around cybersecurity,
    • 01:19:29physical security risks, both in the sense of what we have experienced
    • 01:19:32on the Oncor system, but also, again, what the national and in some
    • 01:19:36cases international threat landscape is. So our consultants then
    • 01:19:40helped us analyze a suite of resilience measures. Those are summarized behind
    • 01:19:43me here. That would harden and make our system more resilient. And in all,
    • 01:19:47there's seven measures that we are proposing.
    • 01:19:51In all of that, analysis from our consultants suggests there is more
    • 01:19:55than $8 billion of potential investment where we believe
    • 01:19:58the quantifiable benefits to our customers exceeds the costs.
    • 01:20:02That analysis goes all the way down to the distribution substation
    • 01:20:05and the feeders coming out of those substations, because, again, we thought
    • 01:20:09that was the right systematic, detailed, data driven and granular
    • 01:20:12way to approach this work. And I'll touch in a second how we've used our
    • 01:20:15consultant reports as we prioritize the work here.
    • 01:20:19The seven measures behind me here then, are further broken out
    • 01:20:23into programs and activities. Those are summarized on attachment
    • 01:20:26one to the revised proposed order that was before you. We have some additional copies
    • 01:20:30of those would be helpful for you at some point today. And again, broken out
    • 01:20:34in great detail by measure, program activity,
    • 01:20:37and again on this board behind me. So,
    • 01:20:41opportunity set of $8 billion. And we had this question of, as we discussed
    • 01:20:45these matters with our board, as we looked at what can we accomplish in a
    • 01:20:48three year period? We arrived at around a $3 billion
    • 01:20:51set of capital investments, and then incremental O and M on top of that,
    • 01:20:55how do we prioritize that $8 billion opportunity set and
    • 01:20:59these risks? So you probably could guess this from where
    • 01:21:02I started today. We started with wildfire. Unlike resiliency events.
    • 01:21:06As you all know, an ice storm damages our equipment. The damage to
    • 01:21:09our equipment causes a customer outage. A wildfire can damage
    • 01:21:12our equipment and then cause a customer outage. But our equipment can also
    • 01:21:16be the ignition source of a wildfire, and that means
    • 01:21:20our neighbors and our customers, their property gets damaged.
    • 01:21:23Now, estimating that damage is very difficult because every wildfire is,
    • 01:21:27I think you guys have gotten well familiar. This year is different. And it depends
    • 01:21:30what the wind speed is. It depends what structures are in the way. It depends
    • 01:21:34how fast our friend and kid can get resources deployed
    • 01:21:37and what constraints are around that. But we know the risk is there.
    • 01:21:43Quite simply put, for the good of our state and our customers,
    • 01:21:48we think it's time to substantially tackle wildfire risk
    • 01:21:51beyond what we have done to date. And this plan does that,
    • 01:21:55does it really, through two components. One is there is, as you'll see behind
    • 01:21:58me, a specific wildfire measure. What that looks to do is
    • 01:22:01protect our assets from wildfires but also significantly
    • 01:22:04reduce the risk that we are the source of ignition. And we have some,
    • 01:22:07you actually have some of the equipment here today. If at some point
    • 01:22:11that's helpful for you to see. But then it takes
    • 01:22:14our other measures, primarily our overhead system hardening measure,
    • 01:22:17our flat, flexible and self healing grid measure, and our vegetation management plus measure
    • 01:22:21and then looks to apply those in our wildfire zones.
    • 01:22:25And we do that because, yes, we'll get the benefit of the ice storm,
    • 01:22:28but we'll also get this incremental wildfire mitigation benefit. And we think,
    • 01:22:31again, that's a smart, systematic way to do it. House Bill
    • 01:22:352555 specifically identified wildfire mitigation as
    • 01:22:39something that is in the state's interest to tackle. I think that was
    • 01:22:42validated by the investigative committee's report on wildfires.
    • 01:22:46In all, approximately $900 million of our spend is going to
    • 01:22:49be in our wildfire prone areas. And that, again,
    • 01:22:53is our number one priority in this plan.
    • 01:22:56Our second priority is tackling our underperforming areas. And again, many of
    • 01:23:00these areas may not have what looks like a great cost
    • 01:23:03benefit score, and that's going to be because they tend to be remote,
    • 01:23:07they tend to be long feeders with few customers.
    • 01:23:10Both the statute and your rule requires that we look at areas
    • 01:23:14of underperformance. We go through an exercise every year with the
    • 01:23:17compliance and enforcement staff. Again, we think it is time for us to systematically
    • 01:23:21address these areas. And so that is why that is our number two priority
    • 01:23:25beyond those first two. Then the question is, again, how do we then prioritize the
    • 01:23:29remainder of this. So we used one of our consultants, 1898 and company.
    • 01:23:32And again, one of our experts is here today, if you have questions,
    • 01:23:37to cover the most beneficial areas, where do we get the most bang for the
    • 01:23:40buck, particularly as we do these overhead system hardening, the underground system
    • 01:23:45rehab, our flexible grid measures and our vegetation management.
    • 01:23:48But we've also been intentional to think about how we apply these measures
    • 01:23:52all across our system with the most impactful investments prioritized.
    • 01:23:56We think it's very important that all parts of the encore system get
    • 01:23:59a benefit out of this plan, and that lines up with our
    • 01:24:03workforce. So we've looked at how can we optimize our workforce and optimize this
    • 01:24:06work across our system? And then
    • 01:24:09we have our general technology, our cybersecurity, some things that are
    • 01:24:13kind of foundational investments that help enable some of the other
    • 01:24:16work, particularly around the flexible grid, but also, again, enhance our cybersecurity
    • 01:24:20postures and physical security. There's further detail on page
    • 01:24:24nine of the plan as you continue to look at it on that prioritization framework.
    • 01:24:29So in all, then, our SRP proposes to tackle around
    • 01:24:33528 substations, 528 dots behind me.
    • 01:24:36We provided that map. Again, we have some smaller ones to leave behind if
    • 01:24:40they are helpful for you. That's a little over 56% of the
    • 01:24:44distribution substations we had year end 2023. And measures
    • 01:24:48like our vegetation management plus measure are going to go system wide.
    • 01:24:52Let's map behind me what you'll see. There's color coded dots. Red are areas
    • 01:24:55that will be in our current wildfire zones. Red may not have been the best
    • 01:24:59color to choose there. That's my fault. Yellow are the
    • 01:25:02ones that are of an underperforming nature. And again, what you'll see is those are
    • 01:25:06primarily in our more rural areas. Again, where the feeders are long, customers are
    • 01:25:09few, but important for us to tackle those areas as well.
    • 01:25:13And then the green ones are the ones really chosen on the basis of this
    • 01:25:16cost benefit analysis. Those, as you can tell by the
    • 01:25:19map, tend to be urban concentrated. That makes sense.
    • 01:25:22We serve a lot of customers off of a single feeder in
    • 01:25:25these areas. So we get a lot of bang for the buck for the dollar
    • 01:25:28there. Highly sensitive confidential attachment B. Two to
    • 01:25:32the plan lists out each of these substations by name and
    • 01:25:35by location. Should you want that detail.
    • 01:25:39I do want to touch specifically on the vegetation management plus measure.
    • 01:25:43This is for you, Commissioner Glotfelty. In recent years, we have focused
    • 01:25:47our VM efforts on our mainline feeders to great success
    • 01:25:51to our cd and safety results. Our VM plus
    • 01:25:55program takes that successful program and now applies it to the lateral
    • 01:25:59feeders that come off of those main lines. And it adds in a new technology
    • 01:26:03component. Similar to what we do in our transmission system today. Where we're going
    • 01:26:06to use remote sensing to target the areas where the vegetation is growing
    • 01:26:10the fastest. And therefore presents the highest risk.
    • 01:26:13Different from just simply doing a time based cycle. Let's be smart about it,
    • 01:26:17and it will help us and our contractors target those areas and be more efficient
    • 01:26:20in this work. In all, VM plus will add about $90 million
    • 01:26:24in additional distribution level vegetation management.
    • 01:26:27To the approximately $55 million that was included in our
    • 01:26:31base rate case that you all did a few years ago. That nearly triples
    • 01:26:35our annual spend on vegetation management. We think it will have a tremendous impact
    • 01:26:39on the resiliency and reliability of the grid for the benefit of our
    • 01:26:42customers. Finally, we have prioritized
    • 01:26:46some investments in physical security at our most vulnerable substations.
    • 01:26:49To help both us and law enforcement remain on top of the escalating
    • 01:26:53risks we see around theft, vandalism, and in some cases, ballistic damage.
    • 01:26:58As you look at the dollars, it's not a huge part of the. But again,
    • 01:27:01provide some foundational investments for us to build on in the future.
    • 01:27:04This plan will further strengthen our cyber awareness and protections,
    • 01:27:08including a substantial acquisition of private broadband networks.
    • 01:27:12So that we just really fundamentally decided it's time for
    • 01:27:16us to own the connectivity that we need for
    • 01:27:20all of these smart devices, more of which we're going to deploy as part of
    • 01:27:23this plan. We need to own and be responsible to make sure that is
    • 01:27:26a resilient network and to be held accountable if it is not. Those of
    • 01:27:30you that are on public cell phone networks probably in the past year know much
    • 01:27:33of what I'm talking about. Those have impacted us as well. I want
    • 01:27:37to touch really briefly on the key portions of the settlement.
    • 01:27:40As compared to the initial filings. And again, we welcome any of the other parties
    • 01:27:43at some point, if they would like to chime in. We felt very important
    • 01:27:47that this was not a black box settlement. We tried to make it very open
    • 01:27:51and very transparent about the things that we have adjusted from the filing.
    • 01:27:55In response to the concerns that the parties have raised.
    • 01:27:58The first one is we've agreed to remove approximately $30 million in additional
    • 01:28:02mobile transformers. Not generators, but transformers.
    • 01:28:05These are tremendous resiliency assets for us. This week, actually, about ten
    • 01:28:09minutes from my house in Dallas, there was a pallet fire at an
    • 01:28:12industrial site. Didn't spread to our substation, but the fire was
    • 01:28:16so hot that it damaged our substation and mobile transformers.
    • 01:28:19To bring in while we repair that equipment is one of the ways we can
    • 01:28:22get customers back quickly. So we think there are tremendous resiliency
    • 01:28:26assets. We think with our growth, we need more of them,
    • 01:28:29but we think there's some other mechanisms for us to do that. You all do
    • 01:28:32have a long lead time rulemaking still out there. We think these are long lead
    • 01:28:35time items when we procure them, or we would just simply use our normal recovery
    • 01:28:39methods as we determine the need to have more of these.
    • 01:28:42We've also agreed to push approximately, approximately $300 million of the
    • 01:28:45spend into a fourth year. The plan is filed was basically contemplated
    • 01:28:492025, 26 and 27. We're going to push a little bit
    • 01:28:52into the fourth year. And the way we had that structured is if we don't
    • 01:28:56file an additional SRP, or I think the statute,
    • 01:29:00technically we call it an amendment to this one, that our vision is
    • 01:29:03the order would authorize us to go ahead and move forward with that remainder work
    • 01:29:06in the fourth year. Now, sitting here today will tell you we don't anticipate this
    • 01:29:10is the end of our resiliency journey. And so if we file an amendment
    • 01:29:13to this plan or another plan, the idea is we're going to move that money
    • 01:29:16into year one of what will be what we call internally SRP
    • 01:29:20two. And so it will provide everybody another opportunity to look at
    • 01:29:23that. But I want to be clear, in that deferral, it does not
    • 01:29:27include wildfire related or underperforming related
    • 01:29:31investments instead of some of the relatively lower cost benefit things.
    • 01:29:35But again, attachment one to the proposed order will show you where
    • 01:29:38that deferral for that fourth year shows up. And you will notice that
    • 01:29:42it does not show up in wildfire mitigation, does not show up in
    • 01:29:45vegetation management, plus does not show up in physical security,
    • 01:29:49does not show up in cybersecurity. And it shows up primarily in
    • 01:29:52the underground overhead and a little bit in the flexible grid measure there
    • 01:29:58for the stations that have a relatively low benefit cost
    • 01:30:01ratio associated with wildfire risk and underperforming. And again,
    • 01:30:05we talked much to the parties about this. There is no station here
    • 01:30:08with a cost benefit below one, unless it is wildfire related or underperforming.
    • 01:30:13What we agreed to do on these stations, and one of the challenges of these
    • 01:30:16plans is we are looking, in some cases, as far as three years out.
    • 01:30:19So what we've agreed to do is, before we start the work on these stations,
    • 01:30:22we're going to do a secondary check. That is the wildfire risk still there?
    • 01:30:26Is there still an underperforming nature to these feeders? And if
    • 01:30:29there's not, and that risk has moved around our system, then we're going to chase
    • 01:30:32that risk around our system rather than spending money where it turns
    • 01:30:35out that risk has moved elsewhere.
    • 01:30:38That was a big component that your staff had. It was very
    • 01:30:41thoughtful and I'm very pleased that we were able to work collaboratively with
    • 01:30:45them on that. And finally, we believe we've worked
    • 01:30:48collaboratively with the parties to assemble a suite of metrics so that
    • 01:30:52we and you can ascertainous whether these investments have the impact that we believe
    • 01:30:55and the modeling suggests that they will have. Those are contained in attachment
    • 01:30:59to the revised proposed order. So in
    • 01:31:03all, I'm immensely proud of the work that the team at encore has done
    • 01:31:06to put this plan together. We are immensely grateful again to the very constructive engagement
    • 01:31:11of the parties and your staff in working toward
    • 01:31:15an aligned plan here. And we hope this sets a bar for you all for
    • 01:31:18transparency, transparency and granularity in detail on these
    • 01:31:22types of plans. We believe, and Mister Nye
    • 01:31:26said it this week in a meeting I was at. House Bill 2555 in
    • 01:31:29this SRP we think is a generational opportunity to make
    • 01:31:33our system better able to withstand the punch of extreme weather,
    • 01:31:36of bad actors and when outages do happen, get our customers
    • 01:31:40back online faster. So we are excited by this opportunity.
    • 01:31:43We are ready to go. And Miss Buck and
    • 01:31:47I and our other witnesses, as you have questions, we're happy to tackle those today.
    • 01:31:51Thank you for that presentation. And I would, I would add my thanks to
    • 01:31:55everyone and especially at Oncor. Going first can be difficult
    • 01:31:59sometimes and you know, you're treading new, new paths. And so thank
    • 01:32:03you for this. Commissioners, questions for Oncor?
    • 01:32:08I do have some if you'd like me to go 1st. 1st thanks
    • 01:32:12for the presentation. First I want to say, coming right out of the box,
    • 01:32:16I was impressed with the analytics
    • 01:32:20behind what 1898 put together. 1898,
    • 01:32:24for those who are not in this industry, is a consulting firm
    • 01:32:28associated with an engineering firm, Burns and McDonald. But the
    • 01:32:32fact that they are steeped in utilizing data
    • 01:32:36and models to help solve and
    • 01:32:40slice and dice the data to figure out where to go and what to do,
    • 01:32:43I think is a valuable tool. I think how
    • 01:32:46some of that translates. I have a few questions about,
    • 01:32:50but I like the basic, the fact that
    • 01:32:53this plan is based in data and that
    • 01:32:58it can be measured that way. You say that
    • 01:33:01wildfire is one of your number one priorities. Yet wind
    • 01:33:05events are 70% of the problem and wildfires
    • 01:33:09are only 3% of the problem. Why would you put so much effort
    • 01:33:12into the wildfire if wind is the biggest problem?
    • Clip 27 - Commissioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Wildfires vs. Wind, 56545
      01:33:15 So that's a great question, Commissioner. When it comes to outages,
    • 01:33:19yeah. It's the wind events that tend to get customers.
    • 01:33:23It is this third party damage liability that is the issue
    • 01:33:26that utilities, I think, nationwide, are struggling with.
    • 01:33:30Rating agencies have taken notice of it. Utilities have been downgraded
    • 01:33:34by credit rating agencies because of that. And simply,
    • 01:33:37we've seen, this is, I think I would have told you two years ago that
    • 01:33:41type of risk for Texas wasn't here. It was a west coast issue. Well,
    • 01:33:44it's here now and again, the risk that our equipment,
    • 01:33:48even if well maintained things blow into it off
    • 01:33:51of a right away, that we and our customers get exposed to multi hundred
    • 01:33:55hundreds of millions or billion dollar liabilities.
    • 01:33:59And those stem from the damage that's happened to Texans. Right? I mean,
    • 01:34:02we, it happens to the ranches that have
    • 01:34:06been burned up, the animals that have been lost, the structures that have been lost,
    • 01:34:09the people that are harmed by it, and the parts of
    • 01:34:12our system that are in West Texas and then even come into
    • 01:34:16the Fort Worth area, a rapidly growing area of the state. We think that's
    • 01:34:20just systematic risk we've got to go tackle for the
    • 01:34:23benefit of our customers, but also for the finances of the company and ultimately
    • 01:34:27the rates that our customers pay that we've got to tackle that in a substantial
    • 01:34:30way.
    • 01:34:33I hear that. I know wildfires and insurance
    • 01:34:38associated with that risk
    • 01:34:42is becoming a problem. I also know in California, the fact that they have
    • 01:34:46inverse condemnation is really what has driven the insurance industry out of that
    • 01:34:50state. We don't have inverse condemnation here in the state.
    • 01:34:53So I don't know what the risk to the
    • 01:34:57underlying utility is, but I understand that
    • 01:35:01you all want to mitigate that, and it's very high on the legislature and other
    • 01:35:05people's top of mind with challenges.
    • 01:35:08Just. Commissioner, on that point, I would note last year our excess
    • 01:35:13liability premiums, which covers wildfire risk, were about $15 million.
    • 01:35:17I believe this year there's 60. So it's the
    • 01:35:20biggest growing area of expense to us kind of on that
    • 01:35:24side. And there were severe questions as to whether
    • 01:35:27we, a Texas utility, could even get wildfire insurance. And it's only,
    • 01:35:31frankly, because of the work of Miss Buck sitting over here and our teams to
    • 01:35:35go visit insurers, expand that pool, and help them understand this risk.
    • 01:35:39The other thing I'll note, I talked about that $900 million number you'll notice behind
    • 01:35:42me, the actual wildfire mitigation piece is a small piece of
    • 01:35:46that. The rest is this overhead stuff, which does help with the
    • 01:35:50windstorms and ice storms and the other types of resiliency
    • 01:35:53risks. I mean, to me,
    • 01:35:57you all have to have a compelling case that you're mitigating
    • 01:36:02the events by percentage of problems
    • 01:36:06that impact your system, and 70% of that is win. So making
    • 01:36:09sure that it doesn't have to be a correlated that 70% of
    • 01:36:13those dollars go to solving that problem. But I think there
    • 01:36:16has to be an understanding
    • 01:36:21that 70% of the dollars have some impact
    • 01:36:24on the biggest risks on your system, and that would be wind.
    • 01:36:28And if you all can help me think through that,
    • 01:36:31you know, or if you have an explanation, that would be great.
    • 01:36:36Why didn't 1898 look at wildfire risk if it's your greatest
    • 01:36:42priority right now? Let me start. I'll sort of maybe tab,
    • 01:36:46jump in next. Again, I think as you look at,
    • 01:36:49well, what is that other cost that could be there and again, of this third
    • 01:36:52party property damage? It's just very difficult to model. It's not really what their
    • 01:36:56model was set up to. Their model was set up really for our infrastructure,
    • 01:36:59right. Our poles and wires and not quite so much what's
    • 01:37:03all the stuff around it that if a fire is started,
    • 01:37:07kind of then spreads and you have that additional damage.
    • 01:37:11So it didn't really fit? I think with that analysis, we did have
    • 01:37:14another independent consultant, EDM, I believe was her name,
    • 01:37:18that is sort of a wildfire specific firm that, again, kind of
    • 01:37:21looks at. What is the modeling we have to look at these risks.
    • 01:37:25What are the types of devices that you would do to mitigate that? What are
    • 01:37:29the types of clearing you would do around your assets to where if there is
    • 01:37:31a spark, it falls on dirt rather than fall on dry grass and things like
    • 01:37:35that. So Tab, I don't know if you have anything. I don't know that I
    • 01:37:37can improve on it. But it was hard to quantify. It was hard to put
    • 01:37:41in a calculator, unknown third party damage and risks.
    • 01:37:44And so we're trying to stay true to the rule, true to the statute,
    • 01:37:48and just decided as a result to use the outside
    • 01:37:51wildfire expert to talk about what we are doing and what they think
    • 01:37:54is industry standard as opposed to put a
    • 01:37:58square peg in a round hole. But again, the fact that all
    • 01:38:02of the other system resiliency improvements
    • 01:38:06were put through a common model of 1898 and the
    • 01:38:09fire ones were not. Do you all see that they're getting
    • 01:38:12less scrutiny or that they're weighted
    • 01:38:17differently? No, I mean, I don't think that they get less scrutiny
    • 01:38:20or weighted different. And again, some of the things
    • 01:38:24we talk about on that wildfire specific measure are
    • 01:38:27things that, again, have other benefit.
    • 01:38:31But actually the wildfire ones are specific to wildfire. Right.
    • 01:38:33So we can replace a device
    • 01:38:37that, when it trips with a fault, ends up putting
    • 01:38:41sparks or hot metal on the ground near our assets with one that doesn't
    • 01:38:44do that. That by itself isn't going to do much
    • 01:38:48to change an actual outage from an actual customer
    • 01:38:52than from that event. It does significantly, however, impact this
    • 01:38:55other risk of creating a wildfire, which then, as it spreads,
    • 01:38:58could then cause other outages to our customers. For that or this other kind
    • 01:39:01of damage, we did think we had to have an independent person
    • 01:39:05come in and look at that. And so that's why we had that additional scrutiny
    • 01:39:08of that to say, are these the best practices? Are these the best investments to
    • 01:39:12make there? And a lot of the wildfire risk is in
    • 01:39:16areas where you don't have high customer density. And so you
    • 01:39:20see lower cost benefit scores there.
    • 01:39:23And then you have to make a qualitative assessment of what
    • 01:39:27makes sense for the state, make sense for the customer, even though it may not,
    • 01:39:31from a dollar's perspective, look like that actually was a question
    • 01:39:35of mine to give me an example of a
    • 01:39:38cost benefit, an activity on cost benefit that doesn't meet the either
    • 01:39:431.0 or 0.9 threshold. And you think some of those wildfire
    • 01:39:47mitigations are examples of
    • 01:39:50that, correct? Yeah. I mean, as I said, really, anywhere where we
    • 01:39:53are in remote rural areas, areas, long theaters, not many customers,
    • 01:39:58we quantified the cost benefit by looking at number of customers,
    • 01:40:01number of minutes out, and then the economic value of that. There's not many
    • 01:40:04people there. You can kind of see how that calculation would work.
    • 01:40:08We do think that's a factor that both the statute in your rule talked about
    • 01:40:12is that type of analysis. We don't think that's the only factor and only basis
    • 01:40:15on which you would make resiliency investments. Okay, a couple
    • 01:40:18more questions.
    • 01:40:21Cybersecurity, obviously, is a big one. Physical security.
    • 01:40:26Why do you think you all need a proprietary fiber network?
    • 01:40:30And how do you. That's $300 million or something like
    • 01:40:33that. And why do you think that gives you more security
    • 01:40:37over cyber threats than other than a shared network?
    • Clip 27 - Commisssioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Cybersecurity & proprietary fiber network, 56545
      01:40:41 Right. So great question. We, again, as we deploy
    • 01:40:45more and more of these smart devices, it's very important we have visibility into them
    • 01:40:48it's very important that they are resilient. That network is reliable.
    • 01:40:53We do have some private broadband communication assets today,
    • 01:40:57and it is an area that we look to do as it makes sense.
    • 01:41:00This is really around buying spectrum and having that spectrum be
    • 01:41:03owned by us and dedicated to our facilities.
    • 01:41:07Again, if you're an at and t or other cell carriers this year,
    • 01:41:11you have seen some of the outages that have been pretty extensive on
    • 01:41:14those public networks. In essence, what I'd say is we have to trust
    • 01:41:17that everyone else takes cybersecurity and resiliency of those assets as
    • 01:41:21serious as we do. And again, as we continue to deploy these
    • 01:41:25devices across the system, we think it's time
    • 01:41:28for us just to own that risk, be held accountable to that risk,
    • 01:41:32but be able to kind of put it to the standard that we know we
    • 01:41:35have for our assets.
    • 01:41:43I think I just have a couple more. So your
    • 01:41:47plan is for three years, and then there is the, an exceptional
    • 01:41:52amount of money that would be considered a fourth year.
    • 01:41:55Is that either going to be a fourth year that we approve this
    • 01:41:59year or is that become the first year of a second
    • 01:42:03plan? How do you all view that?
    • Clip 27 - Commisssioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Plan timeframe & funding, 56545
      01:42:07 Great question. So we, commissioner, we haven't added money to the plan we filed.
    • 01:42:11So it's the same sort of pot of dollars. The one piece we did remove
    • 01:42:14were those additional mobile transformers. And then what we did is took some of the
    • 01:42:17spend into this fourth year. I think what
    • 01:42:21we would envision the order would say is, and I think the phrasing
    • 01:42:24we did in the settlement agreement was, if we don't file an amendment to this
    • 01:42:28plan, file another plan in some world,
    • 01:42:31this is it again, that is sitting here today. That is not remotely what the
    • 01:42:34view of our leadership team is. Then we're authorized to
    • 01:42:37do that. Remaining 300 million in what would be year four of this plan
    • 01:42:41that you're approving. The statute contemplates that
    • 01:42:45resiliency plans can be updated and amended, but that
    • 01:42:49can't take effect until after the third year of when
    • 01:42:52your plan is approved. So if we file an amendment or another plan,
    • 01:42:55we're going to probably file that some, sometime late year two, early year three,
    • 01:42:59so that we can get that through and approved. This is not an area where
    • 01:43:02we really kind of want the work to do this. We would kind of want
    • 01:43:05the work to go like this that's more efficient for our contractors and vendors and
    • 01:43:08everybody. So if we amend the plan, anything that's past
    • 01:43:12year three ends up being live in that amendment
    • 01:43:15anyway. So I think sitting here today, what we would envision is we're going to
    • 01:43:19come in with an amendment or an SRP, two, what's in this
    • 01:43:23now, year four, in essence, rolls into our year one for that plan
    • 01:43:26as well. And if that's a three year plan or a four year plan,
    • 01:43:29then we'll kind of look at it that way. But we think that's,
    • 01:43:31that's, I think, the logical way of it's not really conditional,
    • 01:43:35but again, recognizes that the statute sort of has this contemplated amendment process
    • 01:43:39kind of to it. Commissioner Glotfelty, just real quick before you
    • 01:43:43ask your next question, just for a little housekeeping. So it's 11:15.
    • 01:43:47We have to consider our court reporter, and I think 2 hours
    • 01:43:50is about the top end of what we can do. So at 11:30, we're going
    • 01:43:53to take a 15 minutes recess and then we'll
    • 01:43:56come back. I think the plan should be that we will run
    • 01:44:00through all of the remaining dockets and the rules and projects,
    • 01:44:04and then we'll have to recess again to get set up for
    • 01:44:08the Commission held hearing. So at that point we'll probably just take lunch.
    • 01:44:12This meeting is going a little longer than our initial run of show. So I
    • 01:44:14think at that point we'll take lunch and then come back and then we will
    • 01:44:17hold that commission held hearing until we finish. I'll be finished by one.
    • 01:44:24I'm not going to count on that. Just kidding.
    • 01:44:28I got it. Thank you. So I was impressed
    • 01:44:31with the, again, the 1898 data.
    • 01:44:35I see that in their report
    • 01:44:38to you all on vegetation management, that the vast majority
    • 01:44:42of the vegetation management deals with density
    • 01:44:46in East Texas. Can you
    • 01:44:50commit that the vast majority of the funds that you're spending on vegetation
    • 01:44:54management are going to go to those dark green
    • 01:44:57boxes where the vegetation management is the densest?
    • Clip 27 - Commisssioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Vegetation management spending, 56545
      01:45:00I will start and I'll let Miss Buck kind of chime in. Our vegetation management
    • 01:45:04program, we really view as a system wide program. Okay. And it's
    • 01:45:08going to dramatically expand that sort of system wide east Texas.
    • 01:45:11But this is a resiliency plan. So system
    • 01:45:15wide vegetation management should be part of the operation and
    • 01:45:18maintenance of a facility every day. The system
    • 01:45:22resiliency plan I view as being on top of that. So we're going and attacking
    • 01:45:26the biggest challenges that we're not getting to with our general operation
    • 01:45:30in maintenance. And I just want to make sure that you all
    • 01:45:34are looking towards solving those problems in the most
    • 01:45:38dense challenges that you have. I think Ellen is going to punch
    • Clip 27 - Ellen Buck - VP of Business & Operations, Oncor - Vegetation management, 56545
      01:45:41us if you shut up for a second. Thank you. Ellen Buck with
    • 01:45:44Oncor. Yes, so our program is not a one size
    • 01:45:48fits all program. And we're using data looking at
    • 01:45:52density of vegetation and where the biggest potential
    • 01:45:57impact is to our facilities to prioritize where we perform that work.
    • 01:46:00And so logically, given that East Texas has the greatest density of
    • 01:46:04vegetation, that will be a significant focus of our
    • 01:46:07work. I know that that vegetation,
    • 01:46:10you may have the highest vegetation density in East Texas
    • 01:46:15and fewer customers than you would have in Dallas. So I know there's a,
    • 01:46:21there's another part of that equation that has to be taken into consideration.
    • 01:46:24But I want to just make sure that those
    • 01:46:28in the rural areas where they have a lot of vegetation are considered of
    • 01:46:33equal value in terms of their being a customer
    • 01:46:37as those in the cities that might have a
    • 01:46:40circuit with more customers on it.
    • 01:46:45And Commissioner, I do just want to reiterate a point that
    • 01:46:49I had made in my remarks. We are not swapping VM
    • 01:46:53dollars into here and cutting them elsewhere. We have committed
    • 01:46:57as part of the settlement that we are going to spend every dollar that you
    • 01:46:59approved in our last ray case on both the T and the D system.
    • 01:47:03And to your point, yes, this has been an expansion that we believe will help
    • 01:47:06with those wind events and those other very significant storms that are
    • 01:47:09the things that cause the most outages. Yeah. Okay. I think
    • 01:47:14very two quick more
    • 01:47:18questions. One of them is, when we measure these
    • 01:47:22results, do you think they should be measured
    • 01:47:25by a common metric across all utilities,
    • 01:47:29or do you think each utility and each resiliency plan should
    • 01:47:33have their own common, or their own individual
    • 01:47:37metrics that we, we judge
    • 01:47:41them by? And let me, let me take it one step further. You all
    • 01:47:44and 1898 use customer
    • 01:47:47interruption minutes as a metric for part
    • 01:47:52of your analysis. And to me,
    • 01:47:57there's value in using customer interruption minutes
    • 01:48:01or something similar, even in the most extreme winter
    • 01:48:05storm event events, and track
    • 01:48:09that year by year by year by year by year across all utilities,
    • 01:48:14because even in those
    • 01:48:17most extreme Winter storm events,
    • 01:48:21it incents you to find the best ways to get those
    • 01:48:25minutes down. And if you don't have that Winter storm,
    • 01:48:28then you're going to attack the next biggest event that gets those
    • 01:48:32minutes down again. Do you think there
    • 01:48:36should be one common metric like customer interruption minutes across
    • 01:48:39all of these resiliency plants, all the utilities? Sitting here
    • Clip 27 - Commisssioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Individual metrics for each utility, 56545
      01:48:43today, Commissioner, a great question. One we've thought about, it was one we discussed
    • 01:48:46with the staff and others even during the rulemaking here.
    • 01:48:50I think there are some that you'll find make sense across all the
    • 01:48:54utility plans. That's one of them that might start to become
    • 01:48:57pretty obvious as you look at both our plan and maybe other utilities plans as
    • 01:49:01well. There may be aspects of our plan that don't really apply to
    • 01:49:05others or utilities that don't quite have the purchase a wildfire risk that we do.
    • 01:49:08We don't have a hurricane, tropical storm risk
    • 01:49:12quite in the way that the coastal utilities do. Again, customer minutes interrupted.
    • 01:49:16That's an ice storm for us. Might be a storm on the coast for them.
    • 01:49:20I think as we have looked at how other states have
    • 01:49:23roll out these programs, I do think you, we would tend to
    • 01:49:27expect and encourage and be happy to participate in efforts
    • 01:49:30to start to get the common metrics across them. We want to learn from other
    • 01:49:34utilities as much as ourselves. And so having at some point the common
    • 01:49:37metrics, I would suspect that's where this will go. After some of these, I'm not
    • 01:49:41convinced a common metric would be used to judge you against
    • 01:49:44peers. It would be you against you. But the metric
    • 01:49:48is common across the system. That's what I know. So we judge you against last
    • 01:49:52year and the year before, and this utility two
    • 01:49:56against last year and the year before, but where we see they're getting a better
    • 01:49:59improvement year over year for their customers than we are, we'd want to kind of
    • 01:50:03go look at what are they doing that we're not doing. Okay. And then finally
    • 01:50:09your plan is all about what you're going to do for your system.
    • 01:50:13Do you see that allowing others to put
    • 01:50:17distributed resources and storage facilities on your system
    • 01:50:21that have system improvement benefits?
    • 01:50:24Should there be a metric in this plan for how
    • 01:50:29you allow that to happen and how many facilities or devices get
    • 01:50:32put on the system or how, you know,
    • 01:50:35that happens over in the future? I think it's clear that
    • 01:50:40distribution systems, devices can help benefit whether they're
    • 01:50:44owned by y'all or others. I think, Commissioner, I think for this
    • 01:50:47plan, what we fundamentally looked at was,
    • 01:50:51as you noted, how do we make our infrastructure more
    • 01:50:54resilient? The Commission has a number of other projects on
    • 01:50:58distributed issues. You've got the backup power project, sorry, backup power
    • 01:51:01package grants as well. We didn't want to
    • 01:51:05front run any of those. What I will say is
    • 01:51:08we do think many of these investments we know, and we of
    • 01:51:12course see on our system an increased penetration of distributed resources.
    • 01:51:17We see that those assets are being used in the market more and more to
    • 01:51:21bid into ancillary service markets or provide energy and the like. If our
    • 01:51:24system is down, they can't do that. And so what we really view this
    • 01:51:28as a lot, these investments really, again, are around resiliency.
    • 01:51:32We think they're going to help as that continues to grow and deploy. So we've
    • 01:51:35got programs again in our overhead where we're going to
    • 01:51:38upsize conductor. That was great when we installed it in 1960,
    • 01:51:42but for a variety of reasons, that conductor now has a hard time.
    • 01:51:46When we get extreme temperatures, hot and cold,
    • 01:51:49that may be the exact time that you see more and more ders,
    • 01:51:53perhaps consuming, if it's a home battery, but also then generating
    • 01:51:56and putting back on the grid. That small conductor becomes
    • 01:51:59constraint of that power moving around, then they
    • 01:52:04can't do anything better than they can do today. And so, again, I wouldn't say
    • 01:52:07that that was a prime driver. Here. We were again focused
    • 01:52:11on the customer minute interruptions there. We have limited ability
    • 01:52:14in how we can get those things located
    • 01:52:18in particular areas with the way our market structure is set up. But again,
    • 01:52:21as we continue to do resiliency efforts, this is not all we do
    • 01:52:24on resiliency. Of course, we are continuing to look at how
    • 01:52:28can we have those assets play the role they want to play in the marketplace
    • 01:52:31and have our grid facilitate that. Great. Thank you.
    • 01:52:40I just had a few questions. I also was
    • 01:52:44impressed, I think, at your data based approach and the fact that you case
    • 01:52:49for actions, so to speak, washing outlined in, you know,
    • 01:52:52a very deliberate way, and that you
    • 01:52:56categorized it, really targeting the
    • 01:53:00risk that you wanted to mitigate. And so, you know, my expectation
    • 01:53:04would be that we are addressing risk in
    • 01:53:08a way that we mitigate it before we actually have the
    • 01:53:12event. And I noticed that one of the things that you
    • 01:53:15called out was, you know, when you went in and you looked at
    • 01:53:19what the actual outage experiences were for the
    • 01:53:23customer, that, you know, a large amount of them were
    • 01:53:26due to the thunderstorm wind,
    • 01:53:30but you also had, you know, what, 48% of it occurred
    • 01:53:34during your blue sky days. So I think the expectation of the customer
    • 01:53:38is that, yes, we want a more resilient physical
    • 01:53:42plant that can withstand the weather
    • 01:53:45events which come unexpectedly,
    • 01:53:49but we also expect a physical plant that can
    • 01:53:53be more resilient during the blue sky days.
    • 01:53:56And so can you speak to that a little bit in terms of what do
    • 01:54:00you see that we've done or Oncor has done in this
    • 01:54:04plan that really speaks not just to those high
    • 01:54:08impact weather events, but also addresses
    • 01:54:12the blue sky days? And again, I'll start, and Ellen can
    • Clip 27 - Commisssioner Jackson to Brian Lloyd - Weather events vs. blue sky days, 56545
      01:54:15chime in. But I think fundamentally, our view is that as we make the resiliency
    • 01:54:20efforts so that the system can better withstand the storms and the
    • 01:54:23extreme events, we get those benefits on the blue sky day
    • 01:54:27as well. The modeling that 1898
    • 01:54:30did for us, as we again look at outage minutes, it takes both of those
    • 01:54:34into account. It takes into account the improvement. It actually
    • 01:54:37took some discussion with the parties about, is that really the right way to look
    • 01:54:40at this, or should we just be looking at the resiliency events? And again,
    • 01:54:44we think the thing that we would do for the blue sky problem,
    • 01:54:47and if there's another thing we would do for the extreme weather, and they have
    • 01:54:50these combined benefits and combined synergies, we think that's appropriate to
    • 01:54:54measure and to make those investments that make sense on both
    • 01:54:57of those. So the economic modeling that we have does take both the extreme
    • 01:55:01events as well as the blue sky, the improvement on blue sky days as
    • 01:55:05well. And this will get, this will maybe tie somewhat back to
    • 01:55:09Commissioner Glotfelty's question about wind events being one of our
    • 01:55:12bigger things. I think as you look at again, this list behind me here,
    • 01:55:17about 1.2 billion of the plan is on the overhead system.
    • 01:55:21Right. Which is the one part that is most susceptible to
    • 01:55:25Windstorm. Wind events is what can tend to be susceptible
    • 01:55:28on the blue sky days as well, because you have animal intrusions or other
    • 01:55:32sorts of things that cause outages there, things like strengthening
    • 01:55:37those for maybe not a storm, but a day where the wind picks up
    • 01:55:41and vegetation goes into it. The vegetation piece helps for that.
    • 01:55:44The stronger pole upsized conductor does
    • 01:55:47that as well. When, again, some of the upsizing
    • 01:55:50the conductor, upsizing our transformation, and then building
    • 01:55:54in capacity on our flexible self healing grid,
    • 01:55:56which is about 480 million of the plan. That,
    • 01:56:00again, then enables that system to be able to respond to a variety
    • 01:56:04of things that may happen. If it's the squirrel that gets in the transformer,
    • 01:56:08the more we can segment that, we can have fewer customers that are
    • 01:56:12out. And so the eight hour outage becomes an eight minute outage,
    • 01:56:16in some cases an eight second outage, some cases, no damage at all.
    • 01:56:19Now, we didn't design that really for anything other than
    • 01:56:23the windstorm, but it does, we think will have these other benefits.
    • 01:56:26So Ellen, any. No, I agree. She's trained me well.
    • 01:56:29Look at that. So one of the other
    • 01:56:33things that you mentioned was kind of this secondary
    • 01:56:37check that you're going to do on some of the upgrades, I guess, that you're
    • 01:56:40doing, or some of the resiliency investment.
    • 01:56:43And, you know, oftentimes when you start on a project or an initiative,
    • 01:56:47okay, you have a game plan at the onset, and then as you move forward
    • 01:56:51as you execute, you measure your performance
    • 01:56:54as you go and you make adjustments along the
    • 01:56:57way. And so you mentioned it, you know, associated with some of
    • 01:57:01the improvements you're going to do associated with the wildfires.
    • 01:57:04Is that also going to be the case with your other
    • 01:57:08categories, with some anticipation that
    • 01:57:12as we measure and as we move forward during
    • 01:57:16this three year period, that we might need to see some shifting around
    • 01:57:20which would help us to better address
    • Clip 27 - Commisssioner Jackson to Ellen Buck & Brian Lloyd - Addressing risk, 56545
      01:57:23the risk? Yeah, so, absolutely, we recognize
    • 01:57:27that conditions on the ground change, risks change.
    • 01:57:31And we will use the data that we
    • 01:57:34use to develop these models and to prioritize these areas, to continually refresh
    • 01:57:38and make sure that we are addressing the right areas and making
    • 01:57:42the impact that we've committed to. So is that actually going to be done during
    • 01:57:46the three year period that you're executing?
    • 01:57:49So we will be looking at the areas that we've prioritized,
    • 01:57:52and before we make upgrades in that specific area,
    • 01:57:56we'll ensure that those upgrades are still needed and provide
    • 01:58:00benefits. And then, Commissioner, as we do all the work,
    • 01:58:03again, we have estimates in here about what we, what work we think
    • 01:58:06based on vintage of a pole, year of
    • 01:58:10conductor installed, what's likely that we're going to find here? But when we go
    • 01:58:13out and into the field, we're going to, we have flexibility built
    • 01:58:17into the plan that we're just not going to go. Turns out four
    • 01:58:20of the five poles are perfectly fine, are sound or strong. We're not going
    • 01:58:24to take those out. We're going to then shift that, shift those dollars elsewhere
    • 01:58:28where it might have been. Man, that theater is in a lot worse shape than
    • 01:58:31we thought it was. And so we're going to do a lot more extensive work
    • 01:58:34kind of there. So the plan's got that flexibility built in to move the dollars
    • 01:58:37around the good cause exception process that's in the
    • 01:58:41rule. We think that was really meant much more for if we decide
    • 01:58:44all of a sudden to not do one of these measures, that we should come
    • 01:58:47in and say, hey, things have changed for a variety of reasons, we're not going
    • 01:58:51to do that within the plan itself. I think, again, all the parties, I think
    • 01:58:54we got them to have the same view that we do, that we want
    • 01:58:58to be able to do the smart learn as we go. And when conditions on
    • 01:59:01the ground are maybe a little different than we thought all the way back in
    • 01:59:042024, when we were in 2026, our teams
    • 01:59:08can appropriately adapt and we've built that into the proposed order.
    • 01:59:11The only thing the lawyer can bring to the table is point you to the
    • 01:59:14proposed order, I guess. But if you look at finding a fact 56 and seven,
    • 01:59:18that's where the flexibility piece is built in. And again, just to be clear,
    • 01:59:22my expectation would be not just going in and doing that inspection.
    • 01:59:26Right. But also evaluating the benefit
    • 01:59:30that you've accumulated over time as you're executing
    • 01:59:34the work plan. Right. And that would, in turn, give you
    • 01:59:37kind of better information that maybe I need to
    • 01:59:41shift the mitigation in one way or the, to better mitigate the risk.
    • 01:59:44That's the plan. I know we're close to lunchtime, but I
    • 01:59:48did want to thank you for your work on this. I wanted to thank
    • 01:59:51you for your approach and also
    • 01:59:55recognizing the value of working with staff and also with
    • 01:59:58others that bring different perspectives. And so I think
    • 02:00:02we all have one common goal. We want a system that's much more resilient.
    • 02:00:07We want to make sure that what we put in place avoids
    • 02:00:11the incident before it even occurs. And so I'm really
    • 02:00:15excited, you know, not just about this very first plan
    • 02:00:18that's out of the box, but the others that are to come, because I think
    • 02:00:21it's really going to help us in terms of, you know, resiliency and at the
    • 02:00:24end of the day, you know, meeting the expectation of the public, which is,
    • 02:00:28you know, we. We keep the lights on. So thank you for your work on
    • 02:00:31this. So I have a. I have a number of questions,
    • 02:00:35but in the interest of time, since you all will be back here on November
    • 02:00:3814 when Commissioner Cobos is here, I will save my questions for November
    • 02:00:4214. So thank you for being here, and we'll discuss this further
    • Clip 27 - Chairman Gleeson calls for recess
      02:00:45at the meeting on November 14. So Commissioners, I'd say at
    • 02:00:49this point, let's take a recess until 11:45.
    • Clip 27 - Chairman Gleeson reconvenes open meeting
      02:01:01All right. We will reconvene the open meeting at 11:46.
    • 02:01:06Shelah, that takes us to item number 29. Will you
    • Clip 29 - Docket No. 56609 – Settlement Agreement and Report to the Commission Regarding CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric LLC’s Violations of 16 TAC § 25.52, Related to Reliability and Continuity of Service for Reporting Year 2022
      02:01:09lay out item 29, please? Item 29 is Docket No.
    • 02:01:1356609. Settlement agreement, and report
    • 02:01:17to the Commission regarding CenterPoint energy, Houston Electric
    • 02:01:20violations of commission rule related
    • 02:01:24to reliability and continuity of service for reporting year 2022.
    • 02:01:28Before you as a proposed order, no corrections or exceptions were filed.
    • 02:01:32Commissioners, any comments on the proposed order?
    • Clip 29 - Commissioner Hjaltman's thoughts on settlement agreement , 56609
      02:01:35I just had one thing. I, not wanting to remand or anything of
    • 02:01:39that extent, I know this has been agreed to, which is great.
    • 02:01:42I would like us to look at these
    • 02:01:46and the violations and the amounts we put
    • 02:01:50forth with a little more standards going forward.
    • 02:01:54You know, I don't think any of us don't expect violations,
    • 02:01:58but this was a drastic increase from previous years. And I want to make
    • 02:02:01sure that utilities know they're going to be held accountable going
    • 02:02:05forward. So that's just my ask. Okay, that makes sense.
    • 02:02:08Commissioners, any other comments?
    • Clip 29 - Motion to approve proposed order, 56609
      02:02:12Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve the proposed order. So moved.
    • 02:02:17I second. Have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
    • 02:02:20Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails.
    • 02:02:23All right, that'll take us to item number 30. Shelah, will you lay out item
    • 02:02:27number 30 please? Yes. (item30:Docket No. 56637 – Settlement Agreement and Report to the Commission Regarding US Retailers, LLC’s Violations of PURA §§ 17.004 and 39.101, Relating to Customer<br />Protection Standards, as well as 16 TAC § 25.475(c)(1), Related to General Disclosure Requirements) Item 30 is 56637.
    • 02:02:31Settlement and agreement, and report to the Commission regarding US retailers
    • 02:02:36LLC's violations of PURA and Commission rules.
    • 02:02:40Before you is a corrected proposed order.
    • 02:02:44So I just had a question on this. So, as I understand it,
    • 02:02:47there's about $110,000 in amounts owed
    • 02:02:51to customers that could not be located. Is that right?
    • Clip 30 - John Lajzer - Commissioner Staff - Unclaimed funds, 56637
      02:02:55 John Lager in Commission staff. That's partially correct.
    • 02:02:58There is a portion that could not be located.
    • 02:03:02The amount that was refunded is not
    • 02:03:05entirely that hundred and nine reflective of going
    • 02:03:10in for persons who had moved out of the area,
    • 02:03:13not with a forwarding address. I can get you that number, but today I don't
    • 02:03:16have it, so. But with the unclaimed money, that money is
    • 02:03:20now going to be put towards, like, a fund or a
    • 02:03:23charity in order to help offset bills for customers? That's correct.
    • 02:03:27Was there any thought given to turning that money
    • 02:03:31over to the comptroller's unclaimed property office?
    • 02:03:34And you know, they have an office over there where you can put your name
    • 02:03:37in online and see if you have any unclaimed property,
    • 02:03:41any money owed to you. I know I've gotten back before.
    • 02:03:44Deposits that I've never gotten back from, like, apartment complexes
    • 02:03:48and things like that. Did you all consider anything like that? I'll go back and
    • 02:03:51check with the investigator who helped. My recollection is no, we had not
    • 02:03:54considered that as an option. Okay. I mean, and again, I don't want to hold
    • 02:03:58this one up, either. I think that may just be something to think about.
    • 02:04:01I don't know how often people actually go into the comptroller's
    • 02:04:05website and look for unclaimed property. I know I have, and I'm sure
    • 02:04:08others have, but maybe just something to consider going forward, if that makes sense,
    • 02:04:12so that the people who owed the money could at least have a chance to
    • 02:04:15go back and get it. Absolutely. Okay. Commissioners, any other questions?
    • Clip 30 - Motion to approve proposed order, 56637
      02:04:20Okay. Then I would entertain a motion to approve the proposed order consistent with our
    • 02:04:24discussion. So moved.
    • 02:04:27I second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
    • 02:04:31Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails.
    • 02:04:37All right, Shelah. I think that will take us to item number 33.
    • Clip 33 - Docket No. 56673 – Settlement Agreement and Report to the Commission Regarding Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation’s Violations of 16 TAC § 25.503e2, Related to Ethical Standards of Market Participants
      02:04:41Yes. Item 33 is Docket No. 56673.
    • 02:04:45Settlement agreement and report to the Commission regarding Rainbow
    • 02:04:49Energy Marketing Corporations violations of Commission rules. Before
    • 02:04:53you is a proposed order. No corrections or exceptions were filed.
    • 02:04:56And Commissioner, Chairman Gleeson filed a memo in this docket. So my
    • 02:05:00memo was just there to address a minor issue in the, in the
    • 02:05:03order. And so, any comments or questions?
    • Clip 33 - Motion to approve proposed order, 56673
      02:05:08No. Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve the proposed order
    • 02:05:12consistent with my memo. So moved.
    • 02:05:15I second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
    • 02:05:18Opposed? Motion prevails. All right. So now
    • 02:05:22we will go back to item number 18 and I will turn the meeting over
    • 02:05:25to Commissioner Glotfelty. Thank you,
    • 02:05:28Commissioner. Not Mr. Chairman.
    • 02:05:32Shelah, would you lay out item number 18,
    • Clip 18 - Docket No. 55338; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-07154 – Proceeding to Resolve Issues in Docket No. 53719 Related to Transportation and Electrification and Charging Infrastructure
      02:05:3555338? Yes, sir. Item 18 is Docket
    • 02:05:38No. 55338.
    • 02:05:42Proceeding to resolve issues in Docket No. 53719,
    • 02:05:45related to transportation and electrification and charging infrastructure.
    • 02:05:50Before you is a SOAH proposal for decision.
    • 02:05:53Exceptions and replies to the PFD were filed. The SOAH
    • 02:05:56ALJ filed a letter and declined to make any changes to
    • 02:06:00the PFD. I believe that I filed a memo recommending changes
    • 02:06:04to the final order. And so, just to note, if the Commissioner agrees with the.
    • 02:06:07You might want to include that in your motion. And Commissioner Glotfelty, he filed a
    • 02:06:11memo in this docket? Correct. I filed a, to lay
    • Clip 18 - Commissioner Glotfelty lays out his memo, 55338
      02:06:14out my memo. I filed a memo
    • 02:06:18which would adopt the PFD with modifications.
    • 02:06:22These are ones that I believe are important to be consistent
    • 02:06:25with Senate Bill 1002, which created this opportunity
    • 02:06:30for public electric vehicle charging stations.
    • 02:06:33And there governs how
    • 02:06:37non ERCOT utilities participate in that
    • 02:06:40role. We should order Entergy to amend their
    • Clip 18 - Motion to adopt PFD with modifications, 55338
      02:06:43tariff to add these restrictions that we put in. If there are
    • 02:06:47no questions, I would move that we adopt the PFD with modifications consistent
    • 02:06:51with my memo, as well as the Commission Counsel memo.
    • 02:06:55I agree as well. So I will second.
    • 02:07:01Moved and seconded with only two of us.
    • 02:07:06All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed?
    • 02:07:11Commissioner, you may have the gavel back.
    • 02:07:14Thank you, former Chairman Glotfelty. You're welcome,
    • 02:07:18Mr. Chairman. You do that very well. You know, anytime you want the middle seat,
    • 02:07:21it's yours. We can do a rotation.
    • 02:07:24Shelah, that will conclude our
    • 02:07:27portion of the contested cases minus the Windermere case, which we'll do at the end.
    • 02:07:31So we'll move now to the Rules and Projects
    • 02:07:34portion of the open meeting. Item number 36
    • Clip 41 - Project No. 56897 – Electric Utility Outage Trackers and Hazardous Condition Reporting
      02:07:38was on the consent agenda. So that will move us to items
    • 02:07:4241 and 42. I'm going to call these up together. That's Project No.
    • 02:07:4656897, electric utility outage trackers
    • Clip 42 - Project No. 56898 – Provision of Emergency Contact Information to Transmission and<br />Distribution Utilities by Retail Electric Providers
      02:07:49and hazardous condition reporting. And Project No. 56898,
    • 02:07:54provision of emergency contact information to transmission distribution
    • 02:07:58utilities by retail electric providers and staff filed
    • 02:08:01a memo. Thank you,
    • 02:08:04Chairman. David Smeltzer for Commission Staff.
    • 02:08:11The first thing that I want to emphasize on this is I want to thank
    • 02:08:14all the stakeholders that have engage truly in a cooperative way. I think that everyone
    • 02:08:19agrees that after Hurricane Beryl, the communication shortfalls that
    • 02:08:23happened really need to be fixed. And I think that everyone's engaged
    • 02:08:27in a lot of good faith across the rep and TDU community to bring us
    • 02:08:30a lot of information. When we initially published these rules,
    • 02:08:33I think that they were good ideas.
    • 02:08:37Some of them have a little bit more logistical
    • 02:08:41issues than we might have thought. And it's very important to me that if we're
    • 02:08:44making some of these big changes that you, the decision making
    • 02:08:48body is fully bought in. So I did a longer
    • 02:08:51than connie would normally permit memo and I think that I will now read it
    • 02:08:54line by line before lunch. Now, David, maybe why don't,
    • 02:08:58if you want to give any more background, do that. And then I'd say maybe
    • 02:09:01go through the issues that are
    • 02:09:05in your memo. I think items two and a four kind of related.
    • 02:09:09So maybe talk about those together and then we can kind of talk through
    • 02:09:13forward looking direction for each issue. Sure.
    • 02:09:17And I'll attempt to be brief and we can ask more questions based on the
    • 02:09:20memo if we like. But I think that together, I view
    • 02:09:24this as sort of a portfolio of responses to the
    • Clip 41 - David Smeltzer - Commission Staff - Online outage map, 56897
      02:09:28issue of customers not being able to get adequate information. I think
    • 02:09:32what I have represented here is issue one relates to the
    • 02:09:36online resources that customers get, where ideally
    • 02:09:40we would want every utility to have an online outage map.
    • 02:09:43And this rulemaking has additional functionality requirements,
    • 02:09:46such as we want people to be able to report outages, we want people to
    • 02:09:50be able to sign up for getting updates on that,
    • 02:09:53we want it to be tested or we want it to be. That's not in
    • 02:09:56there. We want it to,
    • 02:10:00sorry. We want to be notified if it's being updated. So that way we can
    • 02:10:03make other operations and Commission Staff's recommendation is that this is an
    • 02:10:07almost essential resource and that we should proceed with this rulemaking.
    • 02:10:11I agree. I think it is essential that we get this done.
    • 02:10:14So Commissioners? In agreement. Agreement, yeah. I would only add
    • 02:10:17that on the outage tracker. And I know we've talked about
    • 02:10:21this, how important it is to have the opportunity for the customer
    • 02:10:24to be able to go in and physically put their address and be able to
    • 02:10:28actually see, you know, the impact to them personally on
    • 02:10:31the outage tracker.
    • 02:10:36Was there another question you wanted to ask me?
    • 02:10:41The other thing that I kind of noticed was on the outage tracker that
    • 02:10:46we didn't seem to have anything in there that mentioned test,
    • 02:10:50testing it. And so it would probably be good to consider,
    • 02:10:54you know, testing it, not just at the onset of the
    • 02:10:57deployment, if there's been an upgrade to
    • 02:11:00the outage tracker or a change, but also that continual
    • 02:11:04responsibility of the entity to test it on an ongoing basis
    • 02:11:08to make sure that it is functioning and reliable.
    • Clip 41 - David Smeltzer - Commission Staff - Testing of an outage tracker
      02:11:12Thank you. And I think that's something that staff has been looking into.
    • 02:11:16And one of the reasons we wanted to entertain that question
    • 02:11:19is it was not in the proposal, but I think it's a very sensible measure.
    • 02:11:22So this is sort of notice to the utilities that would be
    • 02:11:26responsible for these outage maps. To get back
    • 02:11:30a hold of me, let's talk about these testing requirements and see what might be
    • 02:11:33an appropriate cadence for those to be in the rule. Thank you.
    • 02:11:36I appreciate your question.
    • 02:11:39The, as we move forward with this, as you said,
    • 02:11:42there's a cluster of issues that I think that can be considered together
    • 02:11:46and you wisely clustered them, whereas I did not order them together in the
    • Clip 42 - David Smeltzer - Commission Staff - Customers signing up for status updates & providing emergency contacts, 56898
      02:11:50memo. But I think the high level decision that needs to be made
    • 02:11:54is with regards to the programs where you sign
    • 02:11:57up. My Oncor alerts is sort of an example where a
    • 02:12:01customer can sign up to receive notifications of the status
    • 02:12:05of updates that affect them in real time. And each
    • 02:12:08of the utilities has some version of this program.
    • 02:12:12But as we know right now, they are voluntary sign up programs.
    • 02:12:15And what we learned from the
    • 02:12:19last, I think CenterPoint had mentioned during their testimony, they had 42%.
    • 02:12:23I think that across the board some interested
    • 02:12:27people sign up, some don't. And the premise behind the second rulemaking this package
    • 02:12:30was that retail electric providers that have customer information
    • 02:12:34should transfer that information sort of in a, in a block transfer to
    • 02:12:38TDUs so that they can use it for emergency contacts.
    • 02:12:42And that is one of these ideas that upon conception
    • 02:12:45makes a lot of sense and it's a very sensible precaution. But when we
    • 02:12:49started looking into it, there are a lot of logistical issues and I won't go
    • 02:12:52through all of them, I won't go through all of them
    • 02:12:56here. But the types of issues that we're worried about is, you know,
    • 02:13:00there's costs involved with setting up systems on both sides. So I think it would
    • 02:13:03take longer than we thought. And also there's federal privacy law issues
    • 02:13:07where, I mean, just so it turns out,
    • 02:13:11when you want to make a call to someone, if they haven't consented to that
    • 02:13:14call, you can be subject to federal liability.
    • 02:13:17And based on the strong, like, the number
    • 02:13:21of customers that each of these utilities have, that can become
    • 02:13:25a very costly exercise to implement. And I think there's a
    • 02:13:28lot of room for errors. So data integrity is a situation that
    • 02:13:33we have concerns about, and that can be because a lot of times customers use
    • 02:13:37different phone numbers for billing or for what they would want to be
    • 02:13:40communicated with. Or maybe you signed up with electric service from a
    • 02:13:43broker, or, you know, there's a lot of reasons, and I think some of those
    • 02:13:46are detailed in the memo. And so we worked with stakeholders to
    • 02:13:50come up with a number of avenues to transfer this information.
    • 02:13:54Those are the sub issues. But I think the high level, and we will work
    • 02:13:57through that if that's the direction that we want to go. But I think the
    • 02:14:00high level decision that staff would like direction on is,
    • 02:14:06is that the route that we want to take? Do we want to take this
    • 02:14:08sort of logistically challenging route where we're automatically transferring
    • 02:14:12over all the information so the customers are receiving those
    • 02:14:16contexts? And, of course, the advantage of that route is you're going to get the
    • 02:14:19highest possible number of people signed up.
    • 02:14:22And the opposite side approach is what I have
    • 02:14:26in issue four here, which is the REP community has
    • 02:14:29come forth and said they would be happy to work with us and the tdus
    • 02:14:32in ERCOT to come up with a variety of outreach based approaches.
    • 02:14:36And this can be anything from billing inserts to,
    • 02:14:41you know, websites that interlinked, where when you go to one website, you go to
    • 02:14:44the other to information upon enrollment. And I think that we
    • 02:14:48could, if we wanted to, close down this rulemaking and start up another rulemaking
    • 02:14:52that focuses on making sure that we're identifying and providing
    • 02:14:56information to all the retail customers that want to voluntarily
    • 02:14:59subscribe to these programs. And so based on.
    • 02:15:04So at this time, that's the route that Commission Staff recommending
    • 02:15:08for logistical reasons. But I think this is an area where reasonable minds
    • 02:15:11can disagree. And so this is just another thing
    • 02:15:15that we're looking for feedback on. And I would say that in addition to those
    • 02:15:19two together, the last issue on here also presents
    • 02:15:23another option, which is, you know, I think that there's a particular.
    • 02:15:27I think that we are always concerned about our most vulnerable Texans.
    • 02:15:30And right now, because of that, there's a critical care, and I chronic care form
    • 02:15:34that they can use to sign up already. And depending on which
    • 02:15:38one they're using, they have to fill it out every year or two.
    • 02:15:41And we had a great suggestion from our TDU stakeholders that, well,
    • 02:15:44why don't we modify that form so that either either
    • 02:15:49automatically or voluntarily, it's easier for folks to
    • 02:15:53subscribe, to receive updates during that form.
    • 02:15:56And so we think that if you look across the
    • 02:16:00package of, you know, package of issues, that would make
    • 02:16:03it so that with the outage tracker, we have convenient and reliable information for anyone
    • 02:16:07who needs it when they want it. We would
    • 02:16:10have good, robust outreach campaign
    • 02:16:13and resources to make so people could sign up for these outage
    • 02:16:17notifications if they so choose. And the most vulnerable Texans
    • 02:16:21have an easy, an easier path. So at the time when they're already making that
    • 02:16:24design, they can explore what other options that they want.
    • 02:16:28And I think when we consider this part of the discussion, the last thing that
    • 02:16:32I would emphasize is most of
    • 02:16:35the data transfer solutions make sense if they use a
    • 02:16:39pre existing protocol. So that could be the Texas set, which is the
    • 02:16:42sort of interface that ERCOT and the TDUs use
    • 02:16:46to communicate with one another. And there are limited fields
    • 02:16:50in Texas set. So, for instance, you can't.
    • 02:16:54It doesn't always designate between different type of numbers.
    • 02:16:57Email is always voluntary, so that wouldn't be
    • 02:17:00a complete data set. You can't designate language of choice, things of this nature,
    • 02:17:04whereas any solution that is voluntary would allow,
    • 02:17:09would go through the normal setup where the customer signing up with
    • 02:17:12the number that they want to use, they can select. Do you also want to
    • 02:17:15hear about promotions? Do you also want this types of things? So, it's basically
    • 02:17:19what allow the customer to make the selections for the types of services
    • 02:17:23and notifications that they want to receive. And so, based on timing,
    • 02:17:27Commission Staff doesn't need an answer today. I think this is something that we should
    • 02:17:30be thoughtful about, but we look for
    • 02:17:34any guidance on this cluster together.
    • 02:17:37So on issue five, I think that's a really good idea.
    • 02:17:41With the chronic condition and critical care residential customers, I think that's
    • Clip 42 - Chairman's thoughts on customer communication, 56898
      02:17:45a really good idea. On two and four,
    • 02:17:48as far as not automatically enrolling folks
    • 02:17:52and then withdrawing the rule, I understand the data issues,
    • 02:17:56and I definitely want to hear other perspectives. You know,
    • 02:17:59this was a major issue in the post burial hearings,
    • 02:18:02particularly in the Senate when I testified, the desire of the
    • 02:18:06legislature to ensure that more than 40%
    • 02:18:10of customers are getting communicated with. So anything that's not automatic would
    • 02:18:13give me some concern. So I think, again, I want
    • 02:18:17to hear y'all's perspectives. But I think if we think
    • 02:18:20we might want to move that way, I think it'd be good to. I'd like
    • 02:18:23to hear from other stakeholders. Some came by and talked to me. I also like
    • 02:18:26to talk to some legislative leadership about their feelings on that,
    • 02:18:29but happy to hear y'all's thoughts. Yeah.
    • 02:18:33I know in the past, at least from the legislature,
    • 02:18:37opt in has been the way they go. They do not like the
    • 02:18:41automatic and you have to opt out type procedures. So I think
    • 02:18:45looking for direct just based off of past experience, that's how I would lean.
    • 02:18:50So if that's something they do not identify with anymore, I think it would be
    • 02:18:53helpful to hear that. Yeah. And I think it might be important to track it.
    • Clip 41 - Chairman & Commissioner thought's on tracking progress, 56897
      02:18:56 So if we're at say, 40% now, and we do this
    • 02:18:59at some iteration, tracking our progress, and then perhaps
    • 02:19:03if we're not meeting some standard we think we should
    • 02:19:07with contact information, we may have to revisit it.
    • 02:19:14I guess I kind of looked at it from the perspective of emergency
    • 02:19:19response communications and how
    • 02:19:24the public and how the, the person who is impacted
    • 02:19:28would receive that notification. And, you know,
    • 02:19:32typically when you design emergency response
    • 02:19:35notification, you're really looking for, if you will, kind of like that
    • 02:19:39one two punch. You want a system that is in place,
    • 02:19:43that is passive, that people feel like that they can go
    • 02:19:47in, get the information, such as on the outage tracker,
    • 02:19:51and that that is reliable. And I think one of the issues that we had
    • 02:19:54during Beryl was that that was not in place. And so
    • 02:19:59in a typical emergency response communications
    • 02:20:03design, having the passive component up and operational
    • 02:20:07affords you the opportunity for those individuals
    • 02:20:11to actually go out and get the information when
    • 02:20:15they want it.
    • 02:20:18The other piece of it, which is kind of the,
    • 02:20:22you know, not the passive, but the active notification
    • 02:20:27in some other areas has been designed on a voluntary
    • 02:20:31basis. And one of the values of that is
    • 02:20:35that your emergency communications are only as good as
    • 02:20:39the data that's behind it in terms of who
    • 02:20:42they are notifying. And so sometimes it becomes a challenge if it's
    • 02:20:46not something that the individual does on
    • 02:20:49a voluntary basis, getting that information
    • 02:20:53either initially correct and then also as
    • 02:20:57time moves forward, making sure that it continues to be
    • 02:21:01correct, particularly if that is
    • 02:21:05something that the public feels like is
    • 02:21:09automatic and that they're going to receive and they become reliant on it.
    • 02:21:12So sometimes it's better to have
    • 02:21:16both elements in place. One,
    • 02:21:19that the public knows that they can go out and get
    • 02:21:22the information that they need, that it's available, that it's
    • 02:21:26easy to access. And then also,
    • 02:21:29you know, having that ability to go in and sign up for something
    • 02:21:33that notifies you automatically tells you,
    • 02:21:37you know, that there is an issue and then gives you the opportunity
    • 02:21:41to potentially go into the tracker and
    • 02:21:45see if your area is impacted. If you say or
    • 02:21:48without power but the tracker doesn't show it, being able to immediately
    • 02:21:52write then saying, I need to notify, you know,
    • 02:21:56the TDU that I am without power. One of the
    • 02:21:59other advantages I think, of, of a passive system, particularly one that's
    • 02:22:02up and operational and that has that feature that
    • 02:22:06we talked about earlier, which has the address, is that theoretically,
    • 02:22:10if somebody were to call the rep, the rep could go in
    • 02:22:14and say it's somebody who is not as tech savvy.
    • 02:22:19And typically, I think you always want to design your system
    • 02:22:23to, if you will, the lowest common denominator.
    • 02:22:27And so theoretically, you know, the rep or maybe,
    • 02:22:31you know, a loved one or someone who's trying to help that individual figure
    • 02:22:35out what's going on could go into the tracker as long
    • 02:22:39as they know the address and could kind of help them and get that same
    • 02:22:42information that would be available, you know, on kind
    • 02:22:46of a ring down system. So I think there's a lot of
    • 02:22:50opportunity here if we, we really focus
    • 02:22:53in on getting that passive system in
    • 02:22:58a place where it's something theoretically that would
    • 02:23:02be consistent across all the tdus. And so when you're messaging,
    • 02:23:06you're talking about everybody having the same thing and
    • 02:23:10having that as a really strong system and as a resource and then
    • 02:23:15having this other element of it which is
    • 02:23:19kind of that active part of it available on a voluntary
    • 02:23:23basis, again, so that the information that is
    • 02:23:27fed into that system is accurate. And I think you
    • 02:23:31have an excellent idea of being able kind of tracking this over time,
    • 02:23:35seeing how well we're doing on signing up on that
    • 02:23:39active participation as well as what does the
    • 02:23:43public feel like in terms of the communications, is the
    • 02:23:47system that's been designed, you know, adequate in providing it
    • 02:23:52not just in intense weather,
    • 02:23:56inclement weather situations or emergency situations,
    • 02:24:00but also on, you know, what otherwise would be kind of like those blue sky
    • 02:24:03days. So I would be in favor of
    • 02:24:07something more akin to what you were mentioning in your memo
    • 02:24:10and again, open to other thoughts and ideas and certainly
    • 02:24:14want to hear back from the legislature. But I
    • 02:24:18do feel like that if you were just kind of stepping back and
    • 02:24:22designing a response system from
    • 02:24:27the very beginning and you were going to say, okay, what do I want in
    • 02:24:30it and what elements of it do I want to satisfy
    • 02:24:34the expectations of the public, you'd have a very strong
    • 02:24:38passive system, and then you would have, again, a consistent
    • 02:24:42and easy to engage active
    • 02:24:46component that could be voluntary. So that would be my thought.
    • 02:24:50Yeah. I'm not sure if CenterPoint would be able to tell us, like after or
    • 02:24:53during Beryl, if they were tracking the number of
    • 02:24:57applicants they got to then opt into the system,
    • 02:25:01that would be the time where we would have seen the most people say,
    • 02:25:04I want to sign up. And if they could give us that, that would tell
    • 02:25:07us kind of a growth in what they got from before to
    • 02:25:10after would be helpful. So I'm happy to work with the tdus
    • 02:25:15and try and get you guys some figures on what the subscription levels are
    • 02:25:20across all of them. And I think that rule,
    • 02:25:23the data transfer rulemaking was for ERCOT, but the one that was
    • 02:25:26for outage tracker was our in and out of ERCOT.
    • 02:25:29So I'll reach out and see what numbers
    • 02:25:33there are that we can give you for subscription rates and how they changed and
    • 02:25:36things like that, and try and have that available for next open
    • 02:25:39meeting. And similarly, I know that during briefing,
    • 02:25:44Commissioner Jackson popped open her laptop and started playing with the websites. And I would
    • 02:25:48say we have four TDUs in, four out. If you want to get
    • 02:25:51a sense of, you know, if you are inclined to go
    • 02:25:54on the website and play with the features and see what they are and if
    • 02:25:57you have any constructive feedback or ideas that you want to
    • 02:26:00make sure get addressed, we can discuss that next open meeting as well.
    • 02:26:06Commissioner Glotfelty, any thoughts?
    • 02:26:09I support Commissioner Jackson's. I mean,
    • 02:26:13I think I can get there as well. I just asked maybe for those two
    • 02:26:16issues just may give me a little time. And I don't know if it's the
    • 02:26:18next open meeting or just some subsequent open meeting. I don't
    • 02:26:22know what your timeline is on this, but we can bring this back up and
    • 02:26:26maybe have a more solid answer for you
    • 02:26:29to data questions. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you,
    • 02:26:33David.
    • Clip 43 - Project No. 57152 – Identifying Transmission Service Providers for Implementing the Permian Basin Reliability Plan
      02:26:37All right. I think that will bring us to
    • 02:26:42Item No. 43. That is Project 57152,
    • 02:26:47identifying transmission service providers for
    • 02:26:50implementing the Permian Basin reliability plan.
    • 02:26:54We're going to hear an update from staff.
    • Clip 43 - John Harrison - Commission Staff - Memo on determining, identifying & approving applicable TSPs for projects associated with the Permian Basin Reliability Plan, 57152
      02:27:09 Good morning Chairman and Commissioners.
    • 02:27:12So this is John Harrison on behalf of Commission Staff. And with me
    • 02:27:15is John Poole, also on behalf of Commission Staff. As directed
    • 02:27:19by your October 7 order,
    • 02:27:22staff has directed and filed a memorandum laying out a
    • 02:27:26process and procedure recommendation to determine,
    • 02:27:29identify and approve the applicable TSPs responsible
    • 02:27:33for each project associated with the Permian Basin reliability plan.
    • 02:27:36Order that you've previously approved. We assembled
    • 02:27:40this memorandum after intensive internal discussion with other
    • 02:27:44people in the agency, and we also sought stakeholder input.
    • 02:27:47We brought in a number of TSPs. We conducted
    • 02:27:51a teams call with another TSP. We wanted to
    • 02:27:54make sure that we got their feel for how they felt
    • 02:27:58this process should be developed. And so, based on all of that,
    • 02:28:02we put this memorandum together. Kind of the
    • 02:28:06first step was on October 18, ERCOT filed its
    • 02:28:09initial report, as contemplated by your previous order. We used
    • 02:28:12that as our starting point. We had two main goals in
    • 02:28:16our recommendation. Number one, we wanted to streamline
    • 02:28:20and expedite the process as much as possible. And we
    • 02:28:23also wanted to put in place a system which would
    • 02:28:27fully litigate the rights to assemble, own and operate the various projects
    • 02:28:31in such a way that they would stand up to judicial review. In short,
    • 02:28:35we wanted to do it fast, but we wanted to do it right.
    • 02:28:38So what we landed on is sort of a bifurcated, contested case
    • 02:28:42system. Your previous order established the
    • 02:28:45deadlines by which the commission
    • 02:28:49and staff will know which projects are disputed and
    • 02:28:54which projects are undisputed. The order contemplated
    • 02:28:58deadlines that dated from ERCOT's initial filing
    • 02:29:02and worked out to 15 business days from that filing, and then 15
    • 02:29:06business days from that next one, which, by my calculation, works out to
    • 02:29:11November 8 as us knowing the initial list of disputes,
    • 02:29:14and December 4 as us knowing that final list of disputes in
    • 02:29:19our recommendation. We also seek an additional point of clarification
    • 02:29:23from the tsps as part of their filings. We ask that they
    • 02:29:26provide whether or not they believe the CCN will be required
    • 02:29:30for the project. And we feel that that will be useful information
    • 02:29:34for the commission and useful information for ERCOT and commission
    • 02:29:37staff, as we later on down the line, look towards sequencing
    • 02:29:41and cadence for these projects. So,
    • 02:29:44jumping into the first of the bifurcated processes
    • 02:29:48for all the projects that are agreed, that is, nobody disputes the
    • 02:29:52ERCOT recommendation, or somebody
    • 02:29:56disputes it in that initial round, but they manage to settle things by that December
    • 02:29:594 date. We propose after that December 4
    • 02:30:03date, having commission staff open a project or open a contested case,
    • 02:30:08put all of those projects into that contested case,
    • 02:30:12and then have the TSP's file
    • 02:30:16substantial evidence that can support a final order into
    • 02:30:20that record, and to work alongside commission staff in drafting
    • 02:30:25joint proposed final order for your approval. We want,
    • 02:30:29in particular, to ensure that there are findings, fact and conclusions of
    • 02:30:32law that can stand up review in that agreed final
    • 02:30:36order for the cases where there are disputes
    • 02:30:40the way we thought would be the cleanest to handle that is handling it in
    • 02:30:45individual contested cases. So one contested case per
    • 02:30:48project. We thought that that was
    • 02:30:52the simplest and cleanest manner when
    • 02:30:56filing a final determination on the rights of those applicable tsps
    • 02:31:00to own, construct and operate the projects. We recommend
    • 02:31:04that you work, that you direct
    • 02:31:07the tsps to work with ERCOT and commission staff on sequencing and
    • 02:31:11cadence for the filing of the ccns for the projects.
    • 02:31:15And that goes for both the agreed and the ones that are
    • 02:31:18disputed. We think that that's something that kind of needs to be
    • 02:31:22looked at after we've determined who has the authority
    • 02:31:26to build, own and operate. So thank you,
    • 02:31:29and I'll pass it to John Poole if he has anything to add.
    • 02:31:34I mean, I think the main issue is that we have
    • 02:31:37a system that definitively approves
    • 02:31:42who's going to build and own and operate each project, as well as
    • 02:31:46set us up to be able to look forward to how we're going to sequence
    • 02:31:48out the CCNs. And I think we, we came up with a really good plan
    • 02:31:52to handle both those. Yeah.
    • 02:31:55Thanks to you all staff, to all the market
    • 02:31:59participants who helped you all with this and gave input.
    • 02:32:03I'm supportive of this plan. I know during our last
    • 02:32:06discussion on Permian, there were some pretty strong feelings about what this should look like.
    • 02:32:10I guess since Commissioner Cobos isn't here. I would ask, have you all
    • 02:32:14briefed her on this and what are her feelings? We have
    • 02:32:18spoken with her office. We spoke with her last week
    • 02:32:22before we finalized this memorandum, and we've since spoken with
    • 02:32:26people from her office and it seems that she is supportive of this plan.
    • 02:32:31Commissioners, great work. I think
    • Clip 43 - Commissioner's thoughts on memo, 57152
      02:32:34this is a good outline. As far as you know, we have
    • 02:32:38some timelines put forth and you do kind of talk about in the
    • 02:32:41memo developing a cadence. I think if we
    • 02:32:44could set some timelines so that if staff could file
    • 02:32:49in a memo prior to the December 19 memo,
    • 02:32:52a meeting, a memo about the cadence
    • 02:32:56of filings, and then we ask ERCOT if
    • 02:32:59they can also file a memo prior to the December 19 meeting to file
    • 02:33:04in regards to the sequencing, just so we can have that for stakeholders
    • 02:33:07to understand what it would look like. That would be helpful. Absolutely. I think
    • 02:33:10that will be workable.
    • 02:33:14Rebecca Zerwas for ERCOT. We'd be happy to file memo for the
    • 02:33:1719th. Great. I think
    • 02:33:21it's a good plan that will get us moving on.
    • 02:33:24I think it's a good plan. And I just reiterate, one of the things I
    • 02:33:27don't think you really went into detail about, but the points
    • 02:33:30that you make about the TSP who
    • 02:33:34are asserting their own, to own, build or operate a project
    • 02:33:38would have the burden to present substantial evidence supporting its claim
    • 02:33:42to those rights. So I think throughout the document, the thought was
    • 02:33:47making sure that you have good, sound, supportive evidence and include that.
    • 02:33:51And to the extent they do that, that helps to move the project, the process
    • 02:33:55forward quickly. Absolutely. Just wanted to
    • 02:33:58mention that. Great work. Thank you,
    • 02:34:01Rebecca. Thank you for coming up. Thank you.
    • Clip 54 - Project No. 56040 – CY 2024 Open Meeting Agenda Items Without an Associated Control Number
      02:34:06All right. That will move us to item 54.
    • 02:34:11That is project number 56040, calendar year 2024.
    • 02:34:15Open meeting agenda items without an associated control number. And I believe
    • 02:34:19we have our 2020,
    • 02:34:22our fiscal year 2025 internal audit plan to
    • 02:34:26approve.
    • 02:34:38You're up. We're ready for you, Nicky. Yes.
    • Clip 54 - Nicky Carter - Commission Internal Auditor - Consideration of approval of FY '25 Internal Audit Plan, 56040
      02:34:47 Good morning Chairman, Commissioners. My name
    • 02:34:50is Nicky Carter, and I'm the Internal Auditor for the Commission.
    • 02:34:53I'm here to present project 56040,
    • 02:34:57which is to consider approving the FY 25 internal
    • 02:35:00audit plan. Before I begin, I just want to take the time
    • 02:35:04and express my sincere appreciation to you all,
    • 02:35:07to executive administration, and also to management and staff
    • 02:35:11for helping us to contribute towards the
    • 02:35:15development of this year's audit plan. I'd also like
    • 02:35:18to confirm that the commission's internal audit program is
    • 02:35:22carried out with the objectivity and independence that the division has
    • 02:35:26to have and also that we have the resources necessary
    • 02:35:29to carry out all of the work that's outlined in this plan.
    • 02:35:33Also, the Texas Internal Auditing act and professional auditing
    • 02:35:37standards require the development of the plan that it be based on a
    • 02:35:40systematic assessment of risk for the agency. The act
    • 02:35:44also requires that the plan be presented to the Commission for review and
    • 02:35:48approval. The risk based methodology that was used to prioritize
    • 02:35:51all of our coverage for fiscal year 25 and the agency operations
    • 02:35:56was analyzed based on those multiple risk factors,
    • 02:35:59and we also incorporated input from you all, as well as exec
    • 02:36:03and management and staff. So our audit plan this year
    • 02:36:08consists of an audit of the division of utility outreach
    • 02:36:12and also a carry forward audit of the consumer complaint process.
    • 02:36:16By approving this plan, you'll be approving the internal audit budget,
    • 02:36:20as well as the resources that we currently have allocated to conduct
    • 02:36:23these engagements. We will also carry out additional internal
    • 02:36:27audit requirements, such as follow up work on all prior audit
    • 02:36:31recommendations, will also be conducting a consultation of
    • 02:36:34the Texas Energy Fund, as well as investigative reviews that
    • 02:36:38we receive and other administrative audit activities.
    • 02:36:42In conclusion, I'm just requesting approval for the plan,
    • 02:36:45and I'm more than happy to answer any questions that you may have from us.
    • 02:36:49Thank you for laying that out, and I want to say,
    • 02:36:52since you've come on board, internal audit here is really taking a
    • 02:36:56step up. I want to thank you for your attention to detail on your professionalism
    • 02:36:59and everything you do. You've really brought the level of internal audit at this
    • 02:37:03agency up to a great degree. So thank you for that. Thank you.
    • 02:37:06Commissioners, any questions on the plan?
    • 02:37:09Just echo exactly what the Chairman has said and appreciate all
    • 02:37:13your work. And we all know that it's important to have a process in place
    • 02:37:16and to make sure that as we see opportunities for
    • 02:37:20continuous improvement, that we address them and that along the way,
    • 02:37:23we create the evidence to say that basically what we said
    • 02:37:27we were going to do, we actually did. So appreciate your.
    • 02:37:32I really feel like you have a real passion for this, and we're very fortunate,
    • 02:37:35I think, to have you as part of our family.
    • Clip 54 - Motion to approve 2025 internal audit plan, 56040
      02:37:39Thank you so much. I will entertain a motion
    • 02:37:42to approve the 2025 internal audit plan.
    • 02:37:46So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those
    • 02:37:49in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion prevails. Thank you.
    • Clip 59 - Discussion and possible action regarding agency review by Sunset Advisory Commission, operating budget, strategic plan, appropriations request, project assignments, correspondence, staff reports, agency administrative issues, agency organization, fiscal matters and personnel policy
      02:37:53Thank you. That will bring us to Item 59,
    • 02:37:57an update from our Executive Director.
    • 02:38:00Good afternoon, Connie. Good afternoon. Did you
    • 02:38:04have anything? Please go ahead.
    • Clip 59 - Barksdale English - PUC Deputy Executive Director - Workshop on Texas Backup Power Package Program
      02:38:08Thanks, Connie. Commissioners, I just want to briefly
    • 02:38:11announce that the Texas Energy Fund will
    • 02:38:15host a stakeholder workshop on November 13 starting
    • 02:38:18at 01:30 p.m. to discuss the
    • 02:38:22Texas Backup Power Package Program.
    • 02:38:26Our contractor, Deloitte, will be hosting the workshop online
    • 02:38:29via Zoom. And to that
    • 02:38:33end, we will post an agenda in a newly opened
    • 02:38:37project here at the commission under Project No. 57236.
    • 02:38:43And we will file an agenda which will include topics
    • 02:38:48including the feasibility of the specifications
    • 02:38:52for the range of technologies to be supported by the program, as well
    • 02:38:56as ownership model considerations. We invite
    • 02:39:00all interested stakeholders to participate in that workshop,
    • 02:39:04and we will also outline some opportunities
    • 02:39:08for folks to file written comments through the interchange related
    • 02:39:12to that workshop, and details will be forthcoming
    • 02:39:15both in that project as well as at the Texas Energy
    • 02:39:19Fund website, which is www.txenergyfund
    • 02:39:24.texas.gov Thank you.
    • 02:39:27Thank you. Barksdale. I know doing a workshop like this was very important
    • 02:39:31to the advisory committee and to Senator Johnson. So I appreciate you all, you all
    • 02:39:34taking the time and doing this. We're happy to do it and look forward to
    • 02:39:38robust input from the community.
    • 02:39:41Commissioners, any questions?
    • 02:39:44Okay, thanks, y'all. All right, so we're gonna have
    • Clip 59 - Chairman Gleeson calls for recess
      02:39:47to change out and get ready for this hearing. So what I would propose
    • 02:39:51is we recess until 1:30,
    • 02:39:54let our staff get everything set up. If people want to grab food,
    • 02:39:58they can, and then we come back and settle in for the hearing
    • 02:40:03on Windermere. Does that work? Settle in.
    • 02:40:06So with that, we'll stand in recess until
    • 02:40:091:30.
    • Clip 59 - Chairman Gleeson reconvenes open meeting
      02:40:21 Okay, we will reconvene our regularly scheduled
    • 02:40:24open meeting at 01:35 p.m. on October 24.
    • Clip 13 - Chairman Gleeson calls for recess of open meeting to convene Hearing for Docket No. 57065
      02:40:28 And now we will recess that open meeting
    • 02:40:32and I will convene a hearing in Docket No. 57065
    • 02:40:38and turn this over to our ALJ. Good afternoon,
    • 02:40:42Commissioners. I call to order Docket No. 57065.
    • 02:40:47Commission Staff's petition for an order appointing a temporary manager
    • 02:40:51to Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation.
    • 02:40:55This is Christina Denmark assisting the Commissioners, and the purpose of this hearing
    • 02:40:59is to determine whether a temporary manager should be appointed
    • 02:41:03at this time. Let's go ahead and take appearances from the parties, starting with
    • 02:41:06Commission Staff. Thank you, Judge Denmark. Merritt Lander for
    • 02:41:10Commission Staff. Jeff Walker for Windermere Oaks.
    • 02:41:14Go ahead.
    • 02:41:17Commissioners, we had a prehearing conference on Tuesday, October 22,
    • 02:41:212024, and I admitted commission staff's exhibits one through 29
    • 02:41:26and Windermere's exhibits one, three through seven and nine
    • 02:41:30through 13. And the binders have been provided to you previously,
    • 02:41:34each party has agreed to limit 1 hour to
    • 02:41:38their side to present their case, inclusive of opening and closing,
    • 02:41:42direct and cross, and any questions by the Commissioners.
    • 02:41:46On Tuesday, I made rulings and issued an order number five,
    • 02:41:50memorializing the prehearing conference.
    • 02:41:53Yesterday, Mister Walker filed follow ups on my rulings
    • 02:41:56to err on the side of caution. I'm going to go ahead and treat that
    • 02:41:59as an interim appeal of my order number five.
    • 02:42:03His first issue was with witness order.
    • 02:42:06I'll go ahead and do a motion to reconsider
    • 02:42:09on that one. And Mister Walker, you're free to call
    • 02:42:13your witnesses in the order you please. As to the
    • 02:42:17other two issues, exclusion of Miss Lander
    • 02:42:20as a witness and exclusion of Windermere's exhibit two.
    • 02:42:24These two, in my opinion, are evidentiary rulings which are
    • 02:42:27not subject to appeal under our interim appeal order.
    • 02:42:31But I will defer to you all on those.
    • 02:42:35Okay. I would like to make a .1 of the things
    • 02:42:38that we talked. One of the things that we talked about at Tuesday's meeting was
    • 02:42:42witness Tammy Hargett could
    • 02:42:46be replaced by Hal Lander, who is the CEO
    • 02:42:49of AWR Services. I brought that to your attention because of
    • 02:42:53scheduling issues with Miss Haggart. I would like to have
    • 02:42:57Hal, Mister Hal Landon, who is in the audience today and been sitting here
    • 02:43:00patiently as a replacement for Tammy.
    • 02:43:04Do you have any response? Given that staff has
    • 02:43:08not had an opportunity to prepare to question
    • 02:43:12that witness, I would request that he not be allowed to
    • 02:43:15take the stand. Did you have a
    • 02:43:19chance to talk with Tammy Hargett? I had a chance to research Miss
    • 02:43:23Hargett's qualifications and professional
    • 02:43:28responsibilities with AWR. Okay.
    • 02:43:32Hal is the president, CEO of the corporation,
    • 02:43:37and could speak to that and speak to everything that Miss Hargett
    • 02:43:40was going to present here today.
    • 02:43:44It's critical to you can respond. Yeah, it's critical. Thank you.
    • 02:43:48The issue is not what the proposed
    • 02:43:51witness can speak to. The issue is that staff has not had the opportunity to
    • 02:43:55prepare to question the witness as he was not
    • 02:43:59on the witness list that was provided by Windermere.
    • 02:44:08I would rule then that the
    • 02:44:12replacement of the witness would not be
    • 02:44:16allowed at this time.
    • 02:44:21We still, I'm sorry we cut you all off in your consideration
    • 02:44:25of the other two items. No. So,
    • 02:44:28as was stated, you know, we have these three objections
    • 02:44:33which we could read. We didn't hear a response from
    • 02:44:36staff, so. And I think dealing with
    • 02:44:40them as interim appeals makes sense from a process standpoint,
    • 02:44:44procedural standpoint. So since we haven't heard from staff, you know,
    • 02:44:47we can do this one of two ways. Staff, I think it would be
    • 02:44:51helpful to either respond here if you're prepared.
    • 02:44:55You of course, also have the option to respond in writing if
    • 02:44:59you'd like to make a response. But I think that makes a
    • 02:45:03lot of sense to hear from staff. We can also let Windermere
    • 02:45:07lay out their objections as well first, if we'd
    • 02:45:10like. But I think that process seems to make sense. That works for
    • 02:45:13everyone. Okay. You like
    • 02:45:17Mister Walker? Yeah. So maybe we'll do, I think five minutes should be sufficient.
    • 02:45:21We read what you submitted, so I'd say if you want to lay out your
    • 02:45:24three objections, then we can have staff respond.
    • 02:45:27The objections that were brought forward to. Yes,
    • 02:45:30from order number five. Yeah, order number five. Well,
    • 02:45:33the first objection was, was on the entrance of
    • 02:45:39exhibit number two, was a PIA request.
    • 02:45:42We just felt that we were looking for information coming
    • 02:45:46from Miss Lander in regards to email correspondence
    • 02:45:50during this whole process, and felt that they've
    • 02:45:54installed in the AG's office ruling
    • 02:45:57and we were supposed to get it in a timely manner and never got it.
    • 02:46:01It was a simple request, since she has done work with Windermere
    • 02:46:05in the past. That's really what the request was,
    • 02:46:08was to allow that exhibit to come into play.
    • 02:46:12In response, I'd just like to note that this is
    • 02:46:16simply a letter that the PUC sent to the
    • 02:46:19attorney general's office, noting that some of
    • 02:46:23the materials requested by Windermere are privileged.
    • 02:46:27And so we requested a ruling from the office of the attorney general
    • 02:46:31as to whether or not we had to turn over some, none or
    • 02:46:35all of the requested information. A letter to
    • 02:46:38the attorney general has no probative value in this
    • 02:46:42hearing, which is to determine whether or not a
    • 02:46:45temporary manager is appropriate based on abandonment
    • 02:46:49of the utility Mister
    • 02:46:55Walker rejected. I find
    • 02:46:58that there might have been some relevant information in those correspondence because
    • 02:47:03some of the statements that were outlined in
    • 02:47:08the attorney general in the PUC's response to the attorney general
    • 02:47:12were false and misrepresentative. And we were
    • 02:47:15just trying to get clarification for the record. Hence that's
    • 02:47:19why I put it forth. I do have clarification on
    • 02:47:22the abandonment of the utility.
    • 02:47:25Little harsh words, but I understand since Merritt, you and I have talked about that
    • 02:47:29in the past, what that really, really means here. So I'll leave
    • 02:47:33it at that. Okay. Did you
    • 02:47:36want to discuss your other items? The other item was calling
    • 02:47:40Miss Lander as a witness.
    • 02:47:44I see you know both sides of the argument. I think she brings
    • 02:47:47tremendous value to both sides of the house. Not only
    • 02:47:51PUC staff, but also to Windermere. She's got tremendous
    • 02:47:55knowledge of what has happened over the numerous
    • 02:47:59years she's worked on this case. And I
    • 02:48:02just wanted a chance to speak directly with her
    • 02:48:06and talk about some of the issues that were brought forth in the petition
    • 02:48:10where she gained some of this knowledge and challenged some of the knowledge
    • 02:48:14in this. In the petition that was filed. And with having
    • 02:48:18my key witness, Hal Landon or Tammy Hargett from AWR
    • 02:48:22services not being available to me to challenge some of these things.
    • 02:48:26It kind of puts us in a. Oh, awkward situation.
    • 02:48:30Let's just put it that way.
    • 02:48:35In response, I would just add that
    • 02:48:40I'm not here to testify about whether or not
    • 02:48:44Windermere Oaks has been abandoned and a temporary manager
    • 02:48:47is appropriate. I'm here to talk about the facts on the
    • 02:48:50ground that demonstrate that Windermere has been abandoned.
    • 02:48:54And it seems to me that
    • 02:48:59Mister Walker would like to call me the stand to
    • 02:49:03discuss some of the things that he was trying to request
    • 02:49:07through the PIA filing. And that to me seems
    • 02:49:11a lot like trying to subvert the opinion of the attorney general
    • 02:49:16by questioning me on the stand, which I think is highly inappropriate.
    • 02:49:22Okay, Mister Chairman, I don't
    • 02:49:26know if this is perfect. I need clarification on. We are just trying to rule
    • 02:49:29on whether or not the item should come in or not. Right? We do not
    • 02:49:32need to be addressing these other issues right now. Correct. So I just want clarification
    • 02:49:35for the other commissioners. Yeah, that's correct. So, ultimately, we will rule
    • 02:49:39on whether or not to uphold the ALJ's decision not to admit
    • 02:49:44or to approve the objection.
    • 02:49:51Commissioner. I mean, it's key to my testimony or to
    • 02:49:55my case that whether it's
    • 02:49:58Miss Lander or Hal Landon from the AWR
    • 02:50:02Services, because they have relevant information to what was
    • 02:50:06contained within the petition and what was cited. So I'm
    • 02:50:10getting penalized both ways, I feel.
    • 02:50:14Commissioners, any other questions for the witnesses?
    • 02:50:19Why isn't your.
    • 02:50:23It seems like Tammy Hargett is.
    • 02:50:27The fact that she's not here is a.
    • 02:50:32It's not. It feels like you're telling everybody else it's our fault that
    • 02:50:36she's not here. Why isn't she here representing you and representing
    • 02:50:39the case? I did bring this to the attention of the ALJ at the
    • 02:50:43preliminary hearing that there was a possibility she had to go out of town.
    • 02:50:46She did travel out of town. She was here this morning hoping to get,
    • 02:50:49you know, on the Commissions, you know, having this. This hearing
    • 02:50:55being moved up in the. In the docket. You never know what happens in
    • 02:50:58here. So she was here all morning. She had to personally leave out of
    • 02:51:01town to travel on personal business. This afternoon, they.
    • 02:51:05They came together. I was aware of that. And I gave the ALJ that
    • 02:51:08information on Tuesday and said, may not be Miss Hargett.
    • 02:51:12It might have to be Landon, who is the president of the company, and,
    • 02:51:15well, adverse in what she was going to testify to
    • 02:51:19that was allowed to bring in Miss Hargett
    • 02:51:24into the fold by the ALJ's ruling, which was fine, but unfortunately,
    • 02:51:27she had to travel out of town, so at last minute. I mean,
    • 02:51:31I wish I knew, but that's the best I can surmise.
    • 02:51:34So part of us, when we're looking at this objection or not, and we need
    • 02:51:38to understand it was objected to on
    • 02:51:41relevance. So I need you to explain to me more. Why is this relevant?
    • 02:51:44Will you be prejudiced? Oh, sure. Yes. You have nothing else to
    • 02:51:48put forth? I wanted an expert who is
    • 02:51:51the AWR, runs the
    • 02:51:55Windermere Oaks water plant and sewer treatment. They're our operator.
    • 02:51:59Some of the things that were outlined in the petition
    • 02:52:02were about things such as TCEQ,
    • 02:52:07quality failures, was also about,
    • 02:52:11you know, extensive water boil notices. There's a lot of things in
    • 02:52:14here that I can't speak to. I'm not an expert at it.
    • 02:52:18I brought the expert in to add content to
    • 02:52:21that or add documentation to that,
    • 02:52:25and that's really all it was was an expert witness coming in. Instead of me
    • 02:52:28trying to explain that to you, I had the people who actually run our facilities
    • 02:52:32come in and explain to you where they're at. That's in regards to your witness.
    • 02:52:35Yes. Yeah, that's the witness. I'm in regards to that you're not
    • 02:52:40being able to bring in the document from the letter sent to the OAG.
    • 02:52:43I'm sorry, you're talking.
    • 02:52:46Your objection number. Your objection number two. Oh, no. I have a PIA
    • 02:52:50request is I have it as a submitted and exhibit to.
    • 02:52:53Right, but it was not allowed. Yes, it was not allowed. That's correct.
    • 02:52:57That's what I'm back to that. I'm sorry, we should be taking.
    • 02:53:01Yeah, sorry. Okay. Yes, yes, yes.
    • 02:53:04That was part of my exhibit was the letter that was
    • 02:53:08provided to me by the. By the a. By the. From the
    • 02:53:12PUC to the AG's office. Right. And why is it
    • 02:53:15relevant? What is it going to show me? Well, I think what I wanted to
    • 02:53:18have was I wanted to see what the correspondence were between
    • 02:53:22Miss Lander and outside sources when she was putting together this
    • 02:53:26petition. So having this letter is not going to get.
    • 02:53:29Yeah, today. I don't know. Yeah, I'm waiting on the AG's ruling on
    • 02:53:33it. That's what. That's. We're kind of landlocked on it now. I mean, I have
    • 02:53:37no problem with you guys rejecting this because we're
    • 02:53:40waiting for the AG's office to give us that ruling. So I can't force Miss
    • 02:53:43Lander to give me those things until the AG's office, you know,
    • 02:53:46we're going to church, so you won't be prejudiced if it's. I won't. I won't
    • 02:53:49be prejudiced on that. My witnesses. My witness is really important to me,
    • 02:53:52but this one is not as much because we're writing down the AG's office,
    • 02:53:55but it was relevant information in there that I wouldn't wanted to just see
    • 02:53:59or communicate with. With Miss Lander.
    • 02:54:03So. So this all came to us really
    • 02:54:08late. And so I guess the. The first question I would have as first process.
    • 02:54:12Do you feel like you've had enough time to review all of this
    • 02:54:16to be able to rule on it today? I can say I do,
    • 02:54:20but I do not want to pressure anyone into making
    • 02:54:25a ruling on something they don't feel comfortable
    • 02:54:28that they've had enough time to review. So I
    • 02:54:35feel comfortable ruling. How's do I. I do well.
    • 02:54:40So I would rule in favor of upholding the ALJ
    • 02:54:44and deny these objections.
    • 02:54:47I'm in agreement. I support denying all three.
    • 02:54:50I support denying all three. Then I would move to
    • 02:54:54deny all three objections and uphold the ALJ's ruling.
    • 02:54:58So moved. If that's what we need.
    • 02:55:01Second. All right. All in favor, say aye.
    • 02:55:04Opposed? Motion prevails.
    • 02:55:07Okay, now that that's resolved, we'll continue forward.
    • 02:55:11Commission staff has asked to invoke the rule to
    • 02:55:14exclude witnesses from the hearing, other witness testimony.
    • 02:55:18I'll go ahead and invoke that when we get to the witness section.
    • 02:55:22Let's go ahead and proceed with opening statements.
    • 02:55:25I'll follow up with the commissioner to see if they have any questions, and then
    • 02:55:29we'll continue with our witnesses after that. Commission staff, would you like to proceed?
    • 02:55:32Great. Thank you. Good afternoon, Judge Denmark.
    • 02:55:36Chairman, commissioners. Merritt Lander. On behalf of commission staff
    • 02:55:41today, staff respectfully asks this commission to appoint a temporary manager
    • 02:55:45for Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation, and I do not make
    • 02:55:49this request lightly. I've spent four and a half years working
    • 02:55:53on matters involving Windemere, and I am deeply invested
    • 02:55:56in trying to help ratepayers get the service that they deserve.
    • 02:56:00I'm deeply invested in seeing Windermere succeed. I've read thousands
    • 02:56:04of pages of filings. I have participated in multiple hearings.
    • 02:56:08I've spent hours talking with members of this community.
    • 02:56:11And what I can tell you is things are not good.
    • 02:56:15Under Texas Water Code 13.4132,
    • 02:56:18the Commission has the authority to appoint a temporary manager on grounds
    • 02:56:21of abandonment. Abandonment can include a failure to
    • 02:56:25adequately maintain facilities, resulting in potential health hazards
    • 02:56:29or repeated service interruptions. It can also include displaying
    • 02:56:32a pattern of hostility toward or repeatedly failing
    • 02:56:36to respond to the utility commission or the utility's
    • 02:56:39customers. As the commission will see today,
    • 02:56:43Windermere has repeatedly ignored commission orders,
    • 02:56:46and it knowingly continues to violate commission orders, the Texas
    • 02:56:49Water Code and the Texas Administrative Code.
    • 02:56:53And from where I'm standing, complete disregard for
    • 02:56:56the authority of the commission is an act of hostility,
    • 02:57:00not to mention the fact that Windermere has displayed a pattern of hostility to
    • 02:57:04ward and repeatedly failed to respond to its customers.
    • 02:57:08What reads as true hostility is how consistently Windermere
    • 02:57:12presents inconsistent information to this commission.
    • 02:57:16It has shown itself either unwilling or incapable of satisfying
    • 02:57:20commission orders. It has consistently disregarded deadlines
    • 02:57:24and obligations, and a lack of funds isn't
    • 02:57:27why Windermere ignored the commission. The argument
    • 02:57:31they couldn't pay their attorneys so they couldn't submit their
    • 02:57:35filings hold zero water,
    • 02:57:38clearly capable of submitting pro se filings, just as it has
    • 02:57:42in this docket. Windermere is clearly capable of having
    • 02:57:46its law firm step back so that it can handle filings pro
    • 02:57:49se. And it is well known that this commission is very
    • 02:57:53understanding of the struggles of small utilities.
    • 02:57:57If Windermere had chosen to participate in the enforcement docket
    • 02:58:01in any sort of meaningful way, maybe, and maybe
    • 02:58:05we wouldn't be here today. But here we are.
    • 02:58:08And we are here for valid reason. Staff will also show that Windermere
    • 02:58:12has proved itself unable to adequately maintain its infrastructure.
    • 02:58:16Ratepayers deal with regular leaks, boil water notices,
    • 02:58:19and Windermere's own operator paints
    • 02:58:23a bleak picture of Windermere's system.
    • 02:58:26Windermere has argued that it doesn't have the revenue it needs to operate
    • 02:58:30at the system. But as the record will show, that simply
    • 02:58:33isn't true. The problem isn't a lack of money.
    • 02:58:37The problem is a lack of planning and prioritization.
    • 02:58:41Windermere chose to ignore the commission. Windermere chose to
    • 02:58:45ignore multiple orders and multiple deadlines.
    • 02:58:48They've had so many chances and
    • 02:58:51they did not avail themselves of those opportunities. All they had to do was show
    • 02:58:56up and they didn't. And so staff respectfully
    • 02:59:00requests that the commission appoint a temporary manager for
    • 02:59:04Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation. It is time for someone to step
    • 02:59:08in and handle Windermere's business, because Windermere itself
    • 02:59:12has not and cannot. Thank you.
    • 02:59:17Thank you, Miss Lander. Mister Walker, would you like to do
    • 02:59:20that? Thank you, Miss Denmark. Commission and Chairman.
    • 02:59:24Yeah, sorry. Yeah, sorry. I'm here
    • 02:59:28as a member and as a board member,
    • 02:59:32let me just flatly say out. I'm not against putting
    • 02:59:36a manager in. Not at all. I'm not here to fight
    • 02:59:40that. Never was. Never was my intention. My intention
    • 02:59:44here is to ensure that when a manager
    • 02:59:47comes in, that they protect the corporation,
    • 02:59:51its assets and its members. It was clear,
    • 02:59:56or what I read into the petition was there is some
    • 02:59:59ambiguity in there of what the manager would be able to do.
    • 03:00:04I disagree with staffs assessment.
    • 03:00:07This is not really a management issue. It is purely,
    • 03:00:11purely a rate of and revenue issue.
    • 03:00:15That's what it is. When we talk about rates in
    • 03:00:19society, we talk about insurance rates, water rates,
    • 03:00:23postal rates. That's great. At that level.
    • 03:00:27What I'm here to talk about is the corporation's use of that rates,
    • 03:00:31which turns into revenue because of the rate appeal
    • 03:00:35and what happened at the same time as the compliance docket,
    • 03:00:39which for sure have we failed at.
    • 03:00:41Absolutely, totally guilty as outlined
    • 03:00:45by staff. No doubt about it.
    • 03:00:48Why? Because we had to spend the revenue that we were
    • 03:00:52able to get on keeping quality water running
    • 03:00:55to the members and processing wastewater.
    • 03:00:59That's a fact. Now, unfortunately, you cannot hear from
    • 03:01:02the president or the operator because he's been denied access
    • 03:01:06to talk to you about what's been going on out there. But we have had
    • 03:01:10acts of God happen on our plant. Back in the January,
    • 03:01:15February of this last year with frozen pipes,
    • 03:01:18we had a recent issue where a vehicle ran over one of our main
    • 03:01:22valves. It took us almost a day to
    • 03:01:25get that addressed. Boil water notices have gone out.
    • 03:01:29Absolutely. That's not a fault of management.
    • 03:01:32That's our operator doing his job, and that's where we spent the money.
    • 03:01:36We spent the money not on compliance, because we didn't
    • 03:01:39have enough revenue. I sat in this same room 30
    • 03:01:43days ago, and I said, hey,
    • 03:01:47165 was my water bill in February
    • 03:01:50of this year, 60 days later,
    • 03:01:54it's $7.
    • 03:01:57My other board member, Brian, will contest his water bill was
    • 03:02:01$215 down to $50 in
    • 03:02:05a year period. Now, how do you.
    • 03:02:08Simple math says, oh, I think we got a revenue issue
    • 03:02:12here. I'm not blaming anybody within the staff or within
    • 03:02:15the PUC, but that's clearly what is happening here
    • 03:02:19when you have such an aggressive rate reduction and
    • 03:02:23refund taking place at the same time. In addition to
    • 03:02:26that, we were hit with a compliance filing that
    • 03:02:30says we need to have all these compliances in.
    • 03:02:33One of them was, hey, I need a financial audit of 2023.
    • 03:02:37Well, to date, we've spent $17,000
    • 03:02:40of our hard earned money trying to get that audit done. That's a compliance
    • 03:02:44requirement. I don't have the funds to finish that off because I'm
    • 03:02:48paying my operator, I'm paying legal fees that have
    • 03:02:51been initiated by such things as one of our members contacted
    • 03:02:56the IR's and put forth an audit of our 2022
    • 03:03:00tax filings. What are we going to do? We got to spend money
    • 03:03:05to go fight that. Not fight it,
    • 03:03:08but support the IR's. Was the PUC going to
    • 03:03:11step in and say, oh, we don't want you to spend any money to go
    • 03:03:15file against the federal government. Don't do anything there. Spend it on compliance
    • 03:03:19filings. That's what the real story is here. I've got
    • 03:03:23other witnesses that will testify to that effect, people that have
    • 03:03:27been diving into the financial problems. I wish I could have had my
    • 03:03:30operator, because he could have talked to you about some of these operator things that
    • 03:03:34was laid out here in the opening statements. But it really boils down to this.
    • 03:03:38I'm not opposed to any of it. Neither are some of the other board members
    • 03:03:41opposed to it. Many people in the back of the room who are members don't
    • 03:03:45oppose to bringing in a manager. All we're saying, or all I'm saying here
    • 03:03:48is we just want to ensure protection of the corporation
    • 03:03:52and assets that this manager doesn't come in and say,
    • 03:03:55hey, we're having a big rate problem or revenue problem,
    • 03:03:59and you'll hear from my witness about that. We need to go out there and
    • 03:04:02sell an asset, and we're going to do it very quickly. And in some of
    • 03:04:05my, on some of my information that I put forward
    • 03:04:09to the Commission, we've got an active project going on to sell some
    • 03:04:13of the real estate, which is what we were told to do right from the
    • 03:04:15beginning when we identified these rate issues. So right there,
    • 03:04:19this is nothing new that was not brought to PUC staff
    • 03:04:23early on. There are documentations that I've submitted into the record
    • 03:04:27going back to May to say, hey, we're in serious, serious financial
    • 03:04:31problems because of what the rate appeal and in the
    • 03:04:34new rates that were structured. Head down to us. And that's
    • 03:04:38my opening statement.
    • 03:04:41Commissioners, do you have any questions for them before we start with
    • 03:04:44witnesses? Judge Denmark,
    • 03:04:49I would ask maybe we take a quick 15 minutes recess. I want to make
    • 03:04:51sure that the process by which we ruled on
    • 03:04:55the objections was done adequately. So if we could have
    • 03:04:58maybe 15 minutes just to make sure that process was done right and then come
    • 03:05:01back, that would be helpful. Okay, we'll take a
    • 03:05:05break.
    • 03:05:14Order Docket No. 57065.
    • 03:05:18Commissioners, I'll hand it back to you.
    • 03:05:21Apologies for the delay. So, because this was happening
    • 03:05:25in real time, it occurred to me that the
    • 03:05:29witness that has an operational understanding of
    • 03:05:33the system wasn't going to be here.
    • 03:05:35And I'm sure some of us have questions
    • 03:05:39that need to be answered by someone who works at the entity
    • 03:05:42that actually operates the utility. So with
    • 03:05:46that being the case, I think it would be beneficial to hear
    • 03:05:50from. Hear from that witness.
    • 03:05:53Otherwise, some of the questions aren't going to get answered,
    • 03:05:56potentially. Thoughts? Does that
    • 03:06:00mean we, like, overrule or overrule? I know I would.
    • 03:06:03So we didn't. There was no ruling on this? I would.
    • 03:06:07We've just asked for the ALJ to reconsider the ruling if.
    • 03:06:11Yeah, I would definitely have some questions. Okay, so then,
    • 03:06:14Judge Denmark, I would ask that you reconsider your. Your ruling on substituting
    • 03:06:18the witness, having more time now as well. I would reconsider
    • 03:06:22that and allow the substitution of Mister Landon.
    • 03:06:25Is that correct? Yeah. In place of Miss Hargett
    • 03:06:30there you go. Thank you.
    • 03:06:35Commissioners, anything else before we proceed with witnesses?
    • 03:06:38No,
    • 03:06:43at this time I'm going to go ahead and swear in all the witnesses at
    • 03:06:46one time. And then we're going to ask the witnesses to excuse
    • 03:06:50themselves. From the Commissioner's hearing room, we have a place for you all.
    • 03:06:55Mister Walker, could you please stand?
    • 03:06:57Miss Flunker,
    • 03:07:01Mister Garcio. Garceau.
    • 03:07:05And Mister Landon, could you please stand?
    • 03:07:10Lanham. All right, let me.
    • 03:07:14Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm
    • 03:07:18the testimony you will give today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing
    • 03:07:22but the truth? I do, yes.
    • 03:07:26Okay, Miss Lander, who do you plan to call first?
    • 03:07:30I'm sorry, you all can put your hand down and sit down.
    • 03:07:35Well, I want to see who we would like to proceed first with
    • 03:07:39before I remove witnesses. Yes, thank you,
    • 03:07:42Judge Denmark. I think staff would like to go ahead and call Mister Walker
    • 03:07:46first. Okay, I'm going to ask for
    • 03:07:49the other witnesses. You're going to leave the Commissioner's
    • 03:07:53hearing room. When you leave this room, you may not converse
    • 03:07:56about this docket with each other or with any person other than
    • 03:08:00the attorneys in the case, except by permission from the Commission.
    • 03:08:03We have a designated spot for you to sit at and we will call you
    • 03:08:07when we're ready for you.
    • 03:08:19And before we start with the questions, a quick housekeeping.
    • 03:08:23Would you. I'm keeping track of time very carefully here,
    • 03:08:26so we are keeping to our time limits. Would you
    • 03:08:30like me to reserve, like let you know when there's a five minute before
    • 03:08:34to reserve. Five minutes for closing in case you start running
    • 03:08:38the clock. Would you like to say five minutes for closing?
    • 03:08:41Yes and yes. Okay. Thank you.
    • 03:08:46Okay, Miss Lander, you may proceed. Absolutely.
    • 03:08:49For Eve. Mister Walker, I have here a binder
    • 03:08:53with the exhibits that we might actually talk about during
    • 03:08:58the questioning today. I thought it would be easier than having
    • 03:09:01to flip through 8000 pages of documents.
    • 03:09:06So, first and foremost,
    • 03:09:10did I hear you say that you do not object to the appointment of a
    • 03:09:13temporary manager? Absolutely.
    • 03:09:16Awesome. With rules. I did. I did specifically. But you did specify.
    • 03:09:20You did say that you do not object to the appointment? I do not object
    • 03:09:22to the manager. I just want to be able to put rules on as far
    • 03:09:26as the compliance docket. It is
    • 03:09:30true, is it not, that Windemere has failed to timely file
    • 03:09:35any of the compliance requirements? We have failed
    • 03:09:39in not every case, Mister Walker.
    • 03:09:43Bang on a second. Has Windermere timely filed
    • 03:09:47any of the requirements in the compliance docket?
    • 03:09:51To the best of our ability with an asterisk.
    • 03:09:55Mister Walker, you want it? You want a yes, sir? Is that a yes or
    • 03:09:58no? It is a yes or no question. No, we have not. Thank you.
    • 03:10:03Let's talk very quickly then, about the
    • 03:10:06financial situation in Windermere Oaks. Very quickly.
    • 03:10:10You have shown this commission on multiple occasions
    • 03:10:14a bill that you claim is for $7.
    • 03:10:17However, that bill for $7. How much did you have
    • 03:10:21to pay Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation on
    • 03:10:25that month by check credit
    • 03:10:28card? Oh, I paid it with a check. The total bill
    • 03:10:32was $46.42. Thank you so much.
    • 03:10:36I appreciate that. All right.
    • 03:10:39I think aside
    • 03:10:43from that,
    • 03:10:47those are all the questions that I have for Mister Walker. You passing the
    • 03:10:50witness? Yes. Okay, Mister Walker, at this time
    • 03:10:54you have your opportunity for cross exam.
    • 03:10:58Normally it's done in a question and answer format, but we'll go ahead and
    • 03:11:02your cross can be done in a narrative format where you just respond to the
    • 03:11:05questions you just received. Thank you very much. Her question
    • 03:11:08about the water bill. Absolutely. It's right here.
    • 03:11:12This is my bill. That does include a surcharge
    • 03:11:16of $39.21, which the rate
    • 03:11:19order came down to say that was to pay legal expenses.
    • 03:11:24So in order we have to subtract that
    • 03:11:27because I really not supposed to put that towards operating
    • 03:11:33of the water utility, which brings my bill down to $7.21
    • 03:11:38to put towards operations. So that's a clarity
    • 03:11:42on that note. Again, what I paid 60 days
    • 03:11:45earlier was 165. That's a significant amount to
    • 03:11:49Miss Lander's point about have we missed compliance filings?
    • 03:11:53Absolutely. Absolutely. We did our best.
    • 03:11:56Our legal team did their best. There are some,
    • 03:12:00many, many reasons that I can get into about it.
    • 03:12:04You can trust us, you know, trust my testimony. A lot of
    • 03:12:07it had to do with records. They weren't available. I think I can
    • 03:12:11bring up past experiences with the rate appeal,
    • 03:12:14how difficult it was to get records to.
    • 03:12:17Because our. Even in the compliance filing, it says
    • 03:12:21that we need to have an updated records management
    • 03:12:24system, both physically and electronically. We just don't have it.
    • 03:12:28We also were hit with at
    • 03:12:32least one or two legal
    • 03:12:38cases in end of Q1 and beginning of
    • 03:12:42Q2. The IR's audit, which took the legal
    • 03:12:45team out of compliance work and put it towards the
    • 03:12:49responses that the federal government was asking us for.
    • 03:12:52I'm not using it as an excuse, but you have to pick your battles and
    • 03:12:56you have to pick your priorities. And that's the explanation
    • 03:12:59I'm going to use on that. We had other legal ramifications
    • 03:13:04coming to us that we were spending money on them. I've got a whole list
    • 03:13:07of what our legal expenditures were that I can share with the commission
    • 03:13:11to share with Miss Lander and the ALJ in regards
    • 03:13:15to where were we spending our money on PIA requests, on CCN,
    • 03:13:20and on these docket filings as best as we could,
    • 03:13:23plus trying to keep the operations working with the
    • 03:13:27amount of revenue that was coming in. I can't hire a full set of staff
    • 03:13:31or, you know, we can't hire a full set of staff to come in and
    • 03:13:34deal with compliance as best as. And we did it as best as we could
    • 03:13:38with what we have. Mister Walker, does that conclude your
    • 03:13:43testimony? Miss,
    • 03:13:47it's been a long day.
    • 03:13:50Do you have any redirect? Yes.
    • 03:13:53So, just for clarification on the $7 versus dollar
    • 03:13:5646, there isn't anything in the final order in
    • 03:14:00Docket 50788 that requires you to use the money
    • 03:14:03collected from the surcharge for any
    • 03:14:06specific thing, is there? It does say
    • 03:14:10that the $478,000 was
    • 03:14:14allocated to pay for legal work done by
    • 03:14:18Lloyd Gosling at the time that we were required to pay back.
    • 03:14:22And it does state that it's a legal surcharge.
    • 03:14:25So it is a surcharge to recover legal
    • 03:14:29expenses. It is not a surcharge
    • 03:14:33to pay legal bills,
    • 03:14:36is it? It's a gray area,
    • 03:14:40in our opinion. Hang on. Okay, because I know, I'm actually. I'm sorry, I'm not
    • 03:14:44gonna. Hang on. Nevermind. So what I am gonna ask you is
    • 03:14:48for all of the money that you have collected through this
    • 03:14:52legal surcharge for the $478,000
    • 03:14:57in legal fees that you were allowed to recover for
    • 03:15:00Lloyd Gosling services. How much of that money has
    • 03:15:03gone to Lloyd Gosling? Zero. Okay, thank you.
    • 03:15:08And that's all I have. Commissioners, do you have any questions
    • 03:15:12for Mister Walker?
    • 03:15:17Why would zero not go to the lawyers that you say it
    • 03:15:21was for? Because we needed it to run operations.
    • 03:15:26You can't run it on $7. I'm sorry?
    • 03:15:29You can't run your water company operations on $7.
    • 03:15:33I mean, we needed. I mean that. I mean, look at when
    • 03:15:36Brian Garza comes up to testify. Look what his bill is.
    • 03:15:41I've analyzed bills. I mean, they're in 7-17 to
    • 03:15:45$20 to $25 can go towards operations. But we needed
    • 03:15:48the. We need the revenue to
    • 03:15:52sustain operations. But look at our balance sheets, which Brian
    • 03:15:55can speak to. We have a long term obligation to our
    • 03:15:59old legal firm of $500,000. It's carried on our
    • 03:16:03balance sheet. Eventually we're going to have to pay that off. But right now,
    • 03:16:07I need that surcharge to run operations,
    • 03:16:10and I still don't have enough money. Did you come tell us that? Did you
    • 03:16:14tell the commission staff that at the time when you started using those,
    • 03:16:18the surcharge dollars to move towards operations? I didn't
    • 03:16:22get that specific Commissioner, but I did notify
    • 03:16:26Miss Lander. Even at the time when the rate order came out,
    • 03:16:29I was like, when do I have to implement this? Because it came out on
    • 03:16:32the 21 march. Oh. She goes, at your next billing cycle, which was in
    • 03:16:35two weeks. I'm like, you're killing. You're kidding me. No Runway?
    • 03:16:38Nope. They want an order. Order comes in, you've got to comply
    • 03:16:42to it. And I said, okay, looks like that's what we're doing. And our rates
    • 03:16:46just went. Revenue stream went from $165, in this
    • 03:16:50case, if you want to add the surcharge in it to $50 as
    • 03:16:54a round number, just for round number purposes. Okay. On May
    • 03:16:5819, there was a memo or there was an email that was sent to Miss
    • 03:17:00Lander that says, hey, we got a revenue problem here.
    • 03:17:04I want to talk to you about receivership. We can't sustain
    • 03:17:08more than five more months or we're going to run into some serious problem.
    • 03:17:11Well, that's May, June, July, August, September, October,
    • 03:17:155 months. And here we are in October. And you'll see from Brian's
    • 03:17:19analysis of the financial situation of where we're
    • 03:17:22at. We burn. Regardless of what we're spending
    • 03:17:25our money on, which is all operations and
    • 03:17:28legal fees, we're still ten grand in the hole. And we don't
    • 03:17:32even pay that $10,000 a month invoice to Lloyd
    • 03:17:36Gosling, like we're supposed to. That puts us 20 grand
    • 03:17:39in the hole. It's all about rates. It's all about rates.
    • 03:17:43Equate to revenue. We don't have any useless spending.
    • 03:17:47Look at me. I'm a member and a board member. I'm in here trying to
    • 03:17:50fight. I didn't hire this out to attorneys.
    • 03:17:53Anytime I can do it ourselves. We try to do that because
    • 03:17:57we don't want to rack up a legal bill. But we've been smacked with legal
    • 03:18:00bills. PIA requests,
    • 03:18:03Ir's audits. Seriously,
    • 03:18:06CCNS interventions by members and such.
    • 03:18:10It's just been killing us. You can look at our financials. He'll come up
    • 03:18:13and talk about it.
    • 03:18:17So do you currently have legal attorneys right now? Yes.
    • 03:18:20Yes, we do. But your claim is you couldn't file documents into the compliance docket
    • 03:18:24because you don't have attorneys? No, I didn't say that. I said they
    • 03:18:29have been working diligently on filing into the compliance
    • 03:18:33document. There are several dockets that we've satisfied.
    • 03:18:37There are several that we've asked for extensions on. There is
    • 03:18:40data that they require in there, such as the
    • 03:18:44financial audit for 2023. We've spent $17,000
    • 03:18:49and it's not done yet because those people, the audit people, which are brand new,
    • 03:18:53can't find the records for 2023. Keep in mind, this is
    • 03:18:56the brand new board that came on this year. I've been on. Since 2023?
    • 03:19:02Yes, since 2023. But I was a sole member, so I
    • 03:19:05wasn't responsible for this. We have bad record management, no doubt about
    • 03:19:09it. The compliance filing that Miss
    • 03:19:12Lander is referring to, I signed, I executed. I agreed
    • 03:19:16with her. When we put that package together, her and I worked on that together.
    • 03:19:19We said, here's our problems. Bylaws, records management, election procedures,
    • 03:19:25some other rate management and so on. We've been trying
    • 03:19:28to manage that, but at the same time, I don't have a lot of revenue
    • 03:19:31to do it. Which documents have you filed into the record?
    • 03:19:35I can't answer that wholeheartedly. I know that we put
    • 03:19:39changes in on the bylaws. We put. We have our election procedures
    • 03:19:43that are ready to go. We've been dealing with CCN
    • 03:19:48issues. We've been trying to do the audit, but we just don't,
    • 03:19:51you know. But what documents have you filed? Not what have you been trying.
    • 03:19:54What is filed in the dockets? I can't really speak to
    • 03:19:57that. I don't want to miss, misquote, what we've sent. I should have had the
    • 03:20:00list from legal, but we have been doing filings. Is there a witness that
    • 03:20:03can testify? No, but I can probably pull it up on an email and
    • 03:20:07find out for you. You. By the time we get to the end of this
    • 03:20:10and find out what we file, we are stepping on. I mean, have we been
    • 03:20:12late? Excuse me, Commissioner. Have we been late? Absolutely.
    • 03:20:15There's no doubt about it. I mean, we have, but it's,
    • 03:20:19you know, they call. They call us up and go, hey, what do you want
    • 03:20:22us to work on? We got the IR's stuff, we got PIA requests, we got
    • 03:20:26this, we got that. You know, it's a matter of priorities with
    • 03:20:29what the funds we have to pay them. You gotta remember, every time they did
    • 03:20:33work for us, we got billed. And I only got a certain amount of revenue
    • 03:20:36in that bucket. And you can talk to Brian about, you know, about that aspect
    • 03:20:40of it. It's an unfortunate situation, and there's nobody to blame here.
    • 03:20:43I'm not looking to blame anybody. I think as I came
    • 03:20:46to you guys last, last month, and I showed you my rate,
    • 03:20:51it was a six month checkpoint when the rate appeal came in.
    • 03:20:54And it's just, there is, there's just something wrong
    • 03:20:58in the rates that we've been given. There's just not enough revenue in
    • 03:21:01there to sustain. And you'll hear it from the operator, and you'll hear it from
    • 03:21:04financial. That's really all it is. Thank you.
    • 03:21:07Commissioner Yaltman, if I may, if you take a look at staff
    • 03:21:11exhibit 26, it's actually just a printout of
    • 03:21:15all of the sort of the interchange page
    • 03:21:19for docket 56167. And it just lists all the filings
    • 03:21:22that have been submitted. You'll see. I think
    • 03:21:26there was a request for extension very early on.
    • 03:21:30And then in,
    • 03:21:34let's see, August, the Windermere
    • 03:21:37Oaks Water Supply Corporation bylaws committee
    • 03:21:41filed some proposed revised bylaws.
    • 03:21:44Unfortunately, we had no idea who the
    • 03:21:48bylaws committee were. Windemere was represented by council
    • 03:21:51in that docket. And so you
    • 03:21:55cannot accept as a filing on
    • 03:21:59behalf of a represented party something that an
    • 03:22:03unidentified committee has submitted in the docket. And then
    • 03:22:07you'll see. October 3,
    • 03:22:102024, bylaws were filed.
    • 03:22:14They were filed late, there was no request for extension,
    • 03:22:17and they were filed, filed effectively out of order.
    • 03:22:21There was a list of items that needed to be filed per
    • 03:22:24the order, M 55454, which was the compliance enforcement
    • 03:22:28docket. One of the things that was supposed to be filed first was
    • 03:22:32a records management policy, and that
    • 03:22:35way we'd be able to track how the bylaws were modified, who did the modifications,
    • 03:22:40sort of that whole process, because that's one
    • 03:22:43of the problems that Windermere has had historically,
    • 03:22:47is a lack of process. And so we
    • 03:22:52needed to see the processes that were in place before
    • 03:22:55the bylaws, which were late regardless.
    • 03:23:00Thank you. You're welcome. Can I make a follow up comment to
    • 03:23:03that?
    • 03:23:08Records management. Very good example. It's been on our
    • 03:23:11radar for over a year. How do you put together a records management policy
    • 03:23:16for a water company? The board doesn't have any idea.
    • 03:23:19What do you have to do? Go out and hire people to go do that?
    • 03:23:22Yes, our attorneys had some ideas, but they were focused on
    • 03:23:25other things. We would love to get all this stuff done. We would really love
    • 03:23:29to, but it costs money to put together a new records management program,
    • 03:23:32comprehensive, not just meeting the compliance filing.
    • 03:23:35But ours is bad. I mean, I'll tell you, ours is bad, both electronically
    • 03:23:40and physically at our plant. Really bad. And it's
    • 03:23:43kind of embarrassing. I mean, I use a Gmail account when I should be using
    • 03:23:47something under Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation. We just don't have even simple
    • 03:23:50tools like that to get it done because we don't have the money in order
    • 03:23:54to go implement those things. So,
    • 03:23:57again, guilty for not putting the compliance filings in. That's for sure.
    • 03:24:02So you've said a couple times that you don't have the money,
    • 03:24:06and you've referenced your. Your new bill. Mm hmm. When did
    • 03:24:09that rate go into effect? The rate that has. That is March 21.
    • 03:24:14Is that the March 21 of what year? Yeah. Well, yeah,
    • 03:24:172024. I think that's when the order came down. Sure.
    • 03:24:20So prior to that new rate,
    • 03:24:24you had sufficient revenues to do all this, and we're not. Is that. Is.
    • 03:24:27Is that what I would like to do? That is correct. You had a board
    • 03:24:30that wasn't taking action on it. We had tremendous
    • 03:24:35legal expenses. Miss Lander can contest to
    • 03:24:38that. So can a couple of other Commissioners who saw this thing happen
    • 03:24:42over the last three to four years. I mean, we spent 1.8
    • 03:24:46million in legal fees on the rate appeal,
    • 03:24:50and we still owe 500,000. So where did a lot of
    • 03:24:53our bulk of our money went to? It went to that. It went to inefficient
    • 03:24:58management. Hence, we have a new water, a new operator,
    • 03:25:01awr, who came in in August of 2023
    • 03:25:06and has been with us, you know, since then. And just
    • 03:25:09to be clear, when you say we have to pay, who's paying?
    • 03:25:13Windermere Oaks water supply. I'm sorry, the customers. The ratepayers.
    • 03:25:17Well, the ratepayers. Yes. Yeah. Through rates. That's correct.
    • 03:25:20That's correct. But the. We is the rate payer. Yes, yes. We as the corporation.
    • 03:25:23Yeah. Cause we're a member don't corporation. So when I say that, I'm sorry,
    • 03:25:26I should clarify that just one small point of clarification.
    • 03:25:30The rate case expenses were only about 678,000.
    • 03:25:34Only the additional legal expenses were
    • 03:25:38related to external litigation. Yeah, a lot of litigation.
    • 03:25:41Yeah. Mister Walker, you can understand why our staff
    • 03:25:45and the Commission prior would put an order in that did not
    • 03:25:50really have faith in your financial duties. That was not you, but your prior
    • 03:25:54board. Absolutely. Oh, no, we're lockstep here.
    • 03:25:57I mean, we're lockstep. I get it. Absolutely.
    • 03:26:01This was, this is something that's been going on for three to four years.
    • 03:26:05I mean, everybody can look at the history of the rate appeal. Nobody's challenging
    • 03:26:09that. I think what it was, to be honest with you,
    • 03:26:12that the rates were set using a little
    • 03:26:16bit of outdated data and needed to be updated. They were based upon
    • 03:26:202019 2020 data, if I do believe, and there are no
    • 03:26:23adjustments for 21, 2022 and 23. As a matter of fact,
    • 03:26:27I got an email from PUC staff to say, good grief, your insurance rates are
    • 03:26:30expensive. They're outrageous. We pay over $80,000
    • 03:26:35and just for our insurance alone and plant
    • 03:26:39public, you know, personal insurance and such, they've gone up since that time,
    • 03:26:43almost $60,000 and above.
    • 03:26:47Just a point of clarification, again, if you look at the
    • 03:26:51exhibit that is Windermere's year to date financials, I'll have to find
    • 03:26:54what exhibit number that is,
    • 03:26:58their insurance costs to date, at least according
    • 03:27:01to the exhibit that they admitted. $1,300.
    • 03:27:05Yeah, yeah. Not $100,000.
    • 03:27:08Yeah, but that's based upon 2023.
    • 03:27:12Yeah, not this year. Look at what's in the budget.
    • 03:27:15I mean, if you look at our 2024 budget, which I have here, I mean,
    • 03:27:19it's budget a lot because that's what it is. I mean, I've got an email
    • 03:27:22today from one of our insurance carriers for $32,000
    • 03:27:26for just one of them, you know, and it
    • 03:27:29just didn't get factored in. I mean, it's no fault of anybody.
    • 03:27:32It's good that we're here and having this conversation about there
    • 03:27:36needs to be a correction. I mean, it's a correction.
    • 03:27:40It's no fault of anybody's about, you know, what was established and such.
    • 03:27:45So anyway, so new board.
    • 03:27:49Yes. Who's on the board now?
    • 03:27:53And what do you all see as your mandate? As a
    • 03:27:57new board? It's myself as a VP,
    • 03:28:00Brian Garceau, who you're going to hear from, and Scott Miller, who spoke here
    • 03:28:04this morning. That is the board. Our mandate is to provide
    • 03:28:08clean water and services and our best of our ability
    • 03:28:11and manage through this financial situation until
    • 03:28:16we can apply for a rate adjustment, which we're in the process of doing,
    • 03:28:19which can't be coming into effect until March of
    • 03:28:232025. We were, I think, mandated, and Miss
    • 03:28:27Lander can correct me on this, that we couldn't raise rates for over a
    • 03:28:30year. So I think that is a
    • 03:28:34fact in the rate order or somewhere, if I remember correctly. So we can't raise
    • 03:28:38any rates to, you know, generate more revenue to satisfy
    • 03:28:41what we need to do. So you're saying you're. You can't file a rate case.
    • 03:28:45No, I know. We are in the process of doing that because has to go
    • 03:28:48through the commissions, and we're five months ahead of time. Yeah, but it can't go
    • 03:28:51into effect, I do believe, until March of this next
    • 03:28:55year. No, that's not correct. What's the
    • 03:28:59date? The anniversary one year anniversary date? Well, the order was issued
    • 03:29:03on March 21, 2024.
    • 03:29:07But the one year limitation that you're referring
    • 03:29:10to is in reference to rate of cases
    • 03:29:14brought before the commission. It doesn't apply to
    • 03:29:17rate appeals ruled upon by the Commission.
    • 03:29:20So if you come in and file for a rate
    • 03:29:24change, you do have to wait a year. But there is no rule that says
    • 03:29:28if you have filed a rate appeal and it has been ruled upon by
    • 03:29:31the Commission, you have to wait a year. There is no such rule.
    • 03:29:34Okay. Are your attorneys helping you with that application
    • 03:29:38currently? Yes. And they did not inform you of proper
    • 03:29:42procedure? Not that that's correct.
    • 03:29:46I was unaware of that till I just heard that. Right now. If I would
    • 03:29:49have known that we would have had this application in on March 22,
    • 03:29:53because I was doing the rate analysis of what we're going to do on revenue
    • 03:29:57when I got the Cobos memo. You know,
    • 03:30:00the draft of the Cobos memo, which was before the rate order. I mean,
    • 03:30:04I was looking at this in January and February of this, of this year.
    • 03:30:07There's documents that are. That were floating around to say, wow,
    • 03:30:10if we take the new rate, with the refunds and a surcharge, this is what
    • 03:30:14we're going to generate. It's significant. You take a
    • 03:30:17significant hit. And I've been planning this. My correspondent
    • 03:30:21with the staff on May 19 says, hey, we got
    • 03:30:24a problem here. We got five months of runway here.
    • 03:30:28And that was in May. I was screaming from the rooftops.
    • 03:30:33It just wasn't functional. And it's not like we're
    • 03:30:36spending money, you know, frivolously. We're not. I mean, we got
    • 03:30:39hit with lawsuits, with IRS, audits.
    • 03:30:42I don't consider that a lawsuit, but I got to respond. It's cost the corporation
    • 03:30:46at least $20,000 in accounting and legal fees,
    • 03:30:49CCN interventions, PIA request. It's all
    • 03:30:53documented right here, what we're spending our money on, and we're trying to minimize it.
    • 03:30:57Heck, I'm sitting here. I didn't want to turn this over to legal because it
    • 03:31:00was going to cost us a fortune. I just wanted to come and tell the
    • 03:31:03story about, this is what it is. This is what's happening. And our
    • 03:31:06documentation from our operator and from our, you know, from the guy who's taken
    • 03:31:10on the finance. We'll show you what it is.
    • 03:31:14We got nothing to hide. I'm not doing any funny stuff behind the
    • 03:31:18scenes or shenanigans or anything else like that. Like Miss Lander said,
    • 03:31:21I want to make this successful. I hope we can.
    • 03:31:25We have an old system, by the way. Oh, we don't have any money to
    • 03:31:29even update it, but Mister Lanham will speak to that
    • 03:31:32from AWR SCI Environment. Well, hopefully the attorneys
    • 03:31:36that are helping you with your refiling package are watching this. Oh, they are.
    • 03:31:40Absolutely, they are. I was with them on this morning.
    • 03:31:44So telling them, let's go. They're getting. They're getting some
    • 03:31:48free legal interpretation.
    • 03:31:55Any other questions, Commissioners?
    • 03:31:59Do we have copies of the budget for this year?
    • 03:32:03You do. It's actually Windermere exhibit one.
    • 03:32:07It has their 2022 budget. An actual
    • 03:32:112023 budget? An actual. And then their 2024
    • 03:32:15budget.
    • 03:32:19Since you talked about. Look at where it says legal. I can find it for
    • 03:32:22you. We had budgeted $3,000, which was just insane. There was
    • 03:32:26no way we were going to do that. But that's kind of what we were
    • 03:32:29pushed towards.
    • 03:32:33Thank you.
    • 03:32:41It's a congress, and, you know,
    • 03:32:44if I can speak. I mean, we're out. We've got an active set
    • 03:32:48of real estate that we're trying to sell to generate money.
    • 03:32:51Absolutely. We've had that in the works since the first of the year.
    • 03:32:55It's been listed, it's been published on many websites and
    • 03:32:58so on. It's six acres that hasn't been touched in 25 years.
    • 03:33:03We're trying to sell it to generate money because that's what
    • 03:33:06we talked about.
    • 03:33:16I'm sorry. You mentioned you're in favor of
    • 03:33:20temporary managing conservators. If. And you stated if there were
    • 03:33:23parameters placed. Correct. What does that mean to you?
    • 03:33:27We just want to. I think the board,
    • 03:33:31Scott, Brian and myself and some of the members that I talked to just
    • 03:33:34want to put some rules on it.
    • 03:33:38Like, the temporary manager can't go out and sell this asset that we're
    • 03:33:42trying to price for a million and a half dollars if we can get it.
    • 03:33:45And he wants to have a fire sale because our, you know, because we're
    • 03:33:48in the hole on paying a $500,000 legal fee. We don't want him to
    • 03:33:52do that. We want him to be able to say, if something like that comes
    • 03:33:55up, bring it in front of the board. We want to get the members involved
    • 03:33:58and so on. Just put some parameters around some things. Keep the
    • 03:34:01board active, don't go off and all of a sudden we're
    • 03:34:05hit, we're blindsided by things because we got to report to the people that are
    • 03:34:08behind me in board meetings. And that's all we're asking for.
    • 03:34:13I love the idea. Let the guy help us out or whoever's
    • 03:34:16going to come in. Absolutely.
    • 03:34:19Again, I'm not fighting this. I just want clarity of
    • 03:34:24some of the stuff that was talked about and make sure that everybody is aware
    • 03:34:28of what they're about ready to get themselves into. Your current bylaws have those rules
    • 03:34:31in place now that if you wanted to sell an asset, your board
    • 03:34:35has to approve it. Yes, and I just want to make sure that those
    • 03:34:39are not superseded. And that's really all it is.
    • 03:34:43I mean, this could have been handled with a settlement, you know, but you
    • 03:34:47know, it's kind of like an agreement between what the PUC wants and the
    • 03:34:52corporation easily. That's all we're asking for.
    • 03:34:57Thank you, commissioners. Any other questions for Mister Walker?
    • 03:35:02Okay, Mister Walker, you're released from the stand.
    • 03:35:05Or just stay where you are, but at least who
    • 03:35:10would you like to call us? Your next witness? I'd actually like to call.
    • 03:35:13Is it Mister Yallen,
    • 03:35:16the awr person? Oh my
    • 03:35:20gosh. It starts with an l e. I wrote it down.
    • 03:35:25I think he said it's L A M B M O N.
    • 03:35:29Okay, thank you.
    • 03:36:25Miss Lander? Yes. Whenever you're ready.
    • 03:36:29Oh, I'm sorry. He's right here.
    • 03:36:32Hello, sir. How are you today? I apologize, I expected you want
    • 03:36:36to go in the middle. I expected you over here, but you are good where
    • 03:36:39you are. Please, please don't.
    • 03:36:42Don't worry. I am going to hand you. What is
    • 03:36:45Windermere? Exhibit ten, if you don't mind.
    • 03:36:50I believe that those are some operations reports from
    • 03:36:53AWR. Do you recognize those?
    • 03:36:57I'm familiar with them, yes. Okay, great.
    • 03:37:00If you wouldn't mind, let's take a look
    • 03:37:07at.
    • 03:37:16Let's look at the March report. What's labeled page one of two.
    • 03:37:26Okay. How many leaks in February? Leaks requiring
    • 03:37:30repair in February.
    • 03:37:37Okay. Yes, ma'am. Yes. How many leaks in February
    • 03:37:41requiring repair? I don't know the exact number
    • 03:37:46we had during the winter months. Well,
    • 03:37:49if you actually look at the page that I referenced,
    • 03:37:52three leaks in February requiring repair. Okay, thank you.
    • 03:37:55Can you please turn to the May report?
    • 03:37:58Okay, and if you'll take a look at page one of two,
    • 03:38:02you'll see a number three. So it's
    • 03:38:06page one of two. Unfortunately, the numbering on these is
    • 03:38:10a little odd.
    • 03:38:15Page one of two. Sorry.
    • 03:38:19Okay. If you could read number three for me.
    • 03:38:25You're talking. Page two of.
    • 03:38:29I am talking about.
    • 03:38:32Yeah. Which month? I'm sorry again?
    • 03:38:35The month of May, please.
    • 03:38:41You want to look at leaks? I would like
    • 03:38:45to look at page
    • 03:38:48one of two. Number three. It's the number
    • 03:38:52right below the picture of all the trees. Yes, ma'am.
    • 03:38:56Okay. Would you mind? Would you just read that for me, please?
    • 03:38:59Turbidity continues to be an issue for the operators and
    • 03:39:03continues until a new clarifier is constructed.
    • 03:39:06Hawk has provided a quote in the amount of 18,804
    • 03:39:10to install new turbidity measures, chlorine analyzers
    • 03:39:14and controllers to help the operators manage the levels. In the meantime,
    • 03:39:18we have temporarily installed old controllers and meters from another district,
    • 03:39:22which work better than the current windermere equipment. This is helping the
    • 03:39:26operators manage chemical dosing for the turbidity. This is a good temporary
    • 03:39:29solution, but needs a new clarifier and new
    • 03:39:33hi hoc equipment for the future. Okay. And so to
    • 03:39:38me, that says that you guys have
    • 03:39:41had to pull old equipment from
    • 03:39:44other systems to replace Windermere's
    • 03:39:48failing equipment. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct.
    • 03:39:52Okay. Let us turn to the
    • 03:40:00August report, if you wouldn't mind.
    • 03:40:12I tried to put tabs on there to make it a little bit easier.
    • 03:40:15Sorry about that. So if we are looking at
    • 03:40:19the August report, page one of one,
    • 03:40:23at the bottom, you see water
    • 03:40:27system plant, and it looks like you had to repair
    • 03:40:31the clarifier motor for $4,650.
    • 03:40:35That's correct. And if you look at the top of the following page, it looks
    • 03:40:38like you had to replace a bray valve for $5,575.
    • 03:40:43That's correct. Okay. And if we can look at the
    • 03:40:47September report,
    • 03:40:52if we turn to page one of two,
    • 03:40:56you'll see a number two. Would you read that for me again,
    • 03:40:59please?
    • 03:41:02As communicated previously. Pardon me. Turbidity continues
    • 03:41:06to be an issue for the operators will continue until a
    • 03:41:10new clarifier is constructed. When the lcrade releases water from
    • 03:41:13a starkey dam, our operators have to work overtime,
    • 03:41:17day and night to keep the debris and dirt turbidity to
    • 03:41:21a minimum. It requires changing the chemical dosing up and down
    • 03:41:24until the turbidity resolves. We are seeking board approval in the amount
    • 03:41:28of 18,804 to install new hawk turbidity meters,
    • 03:41:32chlorine analyzers and controllers to help the operators manage the levels.
    • 03:41:36The proposal was included in the March and June operator reports.
    • 03:41:40As a reminder, these are also listed in the TCEQ
    • 03:41:43exit interview as items that should be addressed to avoid a violation.
    • 03:41:47Okay, so in September, again, we're talking about the
    • 03:41:50clarifier. Yes, that's correct. And turbidity, which is
    • 03:41:54basically how clean the water is. That's correct.
    • 03:41:58Okay. And then the last thing is
    • 03:42:02staff exhibit 20. Mister Walker,
    • 03:42:05I think you probably have a copy of that in the staff
    • 03:42:09exhibit 20. Oh, and this in your doc?
    • 03:42:13If not in my docs, then probably in yours.
    • 03:42:16I go from 19 to 29.
    • 03:42:21No problem. I got it.
    • 03:42:28So, I'm handing you what is marked as
    • 03:42:31staff exhibit 20. If you would please take a look at page one
    • 03:42:35of two.
    • 03:42:42Okay. And you see it says water system plant.
    • 03:42:46Yes. And it looks like one of the clear well transfer
    • 03:42:49pumps failed. Is that correct? That's correct,
    • 03:42:53yes. Okay. And number one, it says, turbidity and
    • 03:42:56chlorine malfunctioning monitors continue to be a serious issue for
    • 03:43:00the operators. Alarms, mostly false, are creating many
    • 03:43:04hours of overtime and expense for the corporation.
    • 03:43:07We are seeking immediate board approval in the amount of $18,804
    • 03:43:13to install new turbidity meters, chlorine analyzers
    • 03:43:16and controllers. And that was in October,
    • 03:43:20correct? Yes. From March through October.
    • 03:43:23We need to work on turbidity. We need to work on turbidity. We need to
    • 03:43:27work on turbidity. That is correct. Okay. If we
    • 03:43:30look at that second bullet point, the most important
    • 03:43:34capital improvement, immediate need is the construction of a new raw
    • 03:43:37water clarifier. Is there a new raw water clarifier
    • 03:43:41in place? There is not. Okay. And number three,
    • 03:43:45when the LCRA released water from upstream,
    • 03:43:48the issue is magnified. Our operators have to work overtime, day and
    • 03:43:52night to keep the debris and dirt turbidity removed
    • 03:43:56from the raw and pre filter water. Numerous chemical adjustments
    • 03:44:00are required during that time, creating overtime costs until
    • 03:44:04the turbidity lowers in the lake. So basically,
    • 03:44:08you're having to have someone go in and manually adjust because
    • 03:44:12the system isn't capable of cleaning the water effectively
    • 03:44:16on its own right now.
    • 03:44:20That is correct. Because we don't have filtration
    • 03:44:24on that water, which is what a clarifier does. Right.
    • 03:44:28We are having to adjust the chemicals significantly
    • 03:44:32to filter out that particulate matter,
    • 03:44:36and therefore the plant, the plant would not be able to filter it out
    • 03:44:40had we not been making those chemical adjustments. That makes sense.
    • 03:44:44It does. And so, just the
    • 03:44:47easiest question, I think if the turbidity
    • 03:44:51is not accounted for.
    • 03:44:55Not clean, not adjusted properly.
    • 03:44:59It could lead to very dirty water. Yes, yes.
    • 03:45:03Could that very dirty water. Water create a potential health
    • 03:45:07hazard? Yes. Okay, I think
    • 03:45:10that's all I have for you. Are you passing the witness?
    • 03:45:13Yes, pass the witness. Mister Walker,
    • 03:45:19could you give me a little bit about your background for the Commission,
    • 03:45:23if I could, please? Sure. My history is, I was a city
    • 03:45:27manager in four cities in Texas. I've been in the utility business for
    • 03:45:3135 years, and I
    • 03:45:35currently own AWR Services. We've been in business 23 years.
    • 03:45:39We operate various facilities in and around the Austin area.
    • 03:45:42Okay, how long have you had.
    • 03:45:46Which is now psi environment. How long have you guys been in business?
    • 03:45:49So we, we have been in business. AWR has
    • 03:45:52been in business 23 years. We recently were
    • 03:45:56purchased by Sea Environmental,
    • 03:45:59and that only occurred about 90 days ago.
    • 03:46:02Okay, obviously, you have other
    • 03:46:06water systems of, like for Windermere.
    • 03:46:09Correct. How many other type of
    • 03:46:12operations do you manage? Yeah, we have two
    • 03:46:16other treatment plants on Lake Travis. We also
    • 03:46:20have a large treatment plant on Lake Austin.
    • 03:46:24Generally, the water's a bit cleaner, less difficult
    • 03:46:28to treat on Lake Austin. But the other two plants, the water's
    • 03:46:31identical to what is being treated by Windermere. Okay.
    • 03:46:37Do we have a clarifier, a true clarifier in our operations?
    • 03:46:41Well, you don't. There's a system of tanks that this water
    • 03:46:45moves through, and so there is not a true
    • 03:46:48clarifier in the system. Okay.
    • 03:46:53These pumps that you were talking about were a
    • 03:46:56temporary, would be a temporary solution until we were able to
    • 03:47:00upgrade the plant with a clarifier. Correct? Did I hear
    • 03:47:03that right? No. Okay. Yeah, that's what I want to clarify.
    • 03:47:07So, the issue with the turbidity meter
    • 03:47:10and point analyzers, those are intended to be sure that
    • 03:47:15the raw water coming in, we're able to adjust the chemical properly
    • 03:47:19coming in. And then there is a finished water turbidity meter
    • 03:47:23that makes sure that the finished water does not exceed
    • 03:47:270.5 NTU. That's TCEQ standard.
    • 03:47:31And on the chlorine analyzer side? Chlorine analyzer
    • 03:47:35analyzes to be sure that we have adequate chlorine residual before the water goes
    • 03:47:39in the system so that we have proper disinfection.
    • 03:47:43Those two, the ones that were in place when we arrived twelve months
    • 03:47:47ago, were malfunctioning. The ones we have in there now are functioning,
    • 03:47:51but they are old and they were removed from another plant facility
    • 03:47:54and replaced by new. Okay.
    • 03:47:59We contacted you in early summer to
    • 03:48:02create an operation report, which would give us a one,
    • 03:48:06three, and five year plan to how we were going to upgrade
    • 03:48:10our system. Yeah. Did that
    • 03:48:13proposal ever come through?
    • 03:48:16So we received a proposal from Coleman
    • 03:48:20engineering offering to do that, but the
    • 03:48:24board of directors never acted upon that proposal. And eventually,
    • 03:48:28Mister Kalmande became busy with another large project and was
    • 03:48:32not able to do it. Once we went back to him. Was there a price
    • 03:48:35tag on that? Yes.
    • 03:48:41$35,000. Yeah, it was a $35,000
    • 03:48:44proposal to create an operating report that would give us a three to five
    • 03:48:48year plan to tell us where we have old
    • 03:48:52equipment, such as we don't have a true clarifier like some of
    • 03:48:56your other water plants have. So you're doing a lot of this manually?
    • 03:48:59Correct. One final question. Do we have any open TCEQ
    • 03:49:03violations? You do not,
    • 03:49:07and there's one minor exception to that. There was a question about
    • 03:49:11some backflow preventers at the tennis courts
    • 03:49:15and also at the airport. The previous
    • 03:49:18operator had made those improvements and repairs that were
    • 03:49:22required by TCEQ. I think that was a 2022 violation
    • 03:49:27and noted in the inspection, but they did not submit that
    • 03:49:31to TCEQ. We recently found it found that
    • 03:49:34they had made that change, and we've submitted TCEQ.
    • 03:49:38So other than that, all the inspections have been good.
    • 03:49:42Okay, I do have one final question.
    • 03:49:45Miss Lander referred to some of the
    • 03:49:49boil water notices, I think, that we put
    • 03:49:52into evidence. And you can validate this? I think some of those happened.
    • 03:49:56Reasons for those, in most cases were.
    • 03:49:59Yeah, there are always leaks. Yeah, we only do that when
    • 03:50:04there's a leak and we lose pressure in the system are required by TCEQ.
    • 03:50:09Once that leak is repaired, the system flushed.
    • 03:50:13We're required to put out a boil water notice, take a bacteriological
    • 03:50:17sample, and when that bacteriological sample comes in clear, then we
    • 03:50:20release that boil water notice. But it's required by TCEQ anytime you
    • 03:50:24lose pressure in the system. So we were staying within TCEQ.
    • 03:50:28TCEQ standards? Yes, as far as that. Okay.
    • 03:50:32No further questions. Passing the witness any redirect?
    • 03:50:35Yeah, just a. A small amount of redirect. If you look
    • 03:50:39at Windermere exhibit ten,
    • 03:50:43which is all of the AWR reports. If we look
    • 03:50:47at July,
    • 03:50:50is this in this book, or is this in his package? I believe it's in
    • 03:50:54what I passed to him.
    • 03:50:57So if we look at July, I believe page
    • 03:51:00one of three,
    • 03:51:06you should see a section related to TCEQ inspection.
    • 03:51:10Do you see that?
    • 03:51:13Page one of three.
    • 03:51:17That's July. This might be just June.
    • 03:51:21July.
    • 03:51:24Oh, yes. I'll have it now. My June has one afternoon. Yes.
    • 03:51:28Oh, there we go. So, July, page one of three. Do you see
    • 03:51:32a list of four items related to a TCEQ inspection?
    • 03:51:37Yes. Yes. Would you mind just rolling through those for me?
    • 03:51:40Sure. Replace the turbidity meter, proposal included.
    • 03:51:44Replace the chlorine analyzer, proposal included. Relocate the
    • 03:51:48recycle location upstream of the raw water sample site.
    • 03:51:52We are scheduling this work. Recommend evaluation of
    • 03:51:55the current clarifier, and continue working on plans
    • 03:51:58for alternative. Okay, so while there are no pending
    • 03:52:02TCEQ violations, there are a number of
    • 03:52:06things that TCEQ noted that do need attention. Is that correct? Yes,
    • 03:52:09that's correct. There's a difference between the inspection items and
    • 03:52:13it moving all the way to a violation. These are the items that they require,
    • 03:52:17would require us to do. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
    • 03:52:21Commissioners, do you have any questions?
    • 03:52:26So what about item 13,
    • 03:52:29the TCQ report,
    • 03:52:32or where they outline a number of
    • 03:52:36alleged violations, outstanding alleged violations,
    • 03:52:39one of which is the system capacity
    • 03:52:44reached 100% of its pressure tank and service pump capacity.
    • 03:52:47And, of course, they have a requirement that when you reach 85%
    • 03:52:51of the capacity, then you really need to start taking
    • 03:52:56action. So what's the story on item 13
    • 03:52:59in the letter from TCEQ on August 2824?
    • 03:53:04Yeah. So these are evaluations of the actual facilities themselves
    • 03:53:09and whether or not they need to be upgraded. And so they're evaluating
    • 03:53:13the system based on.
    • 03:53:17They're evaluating the system based upon the sizes
    • 03:53:20and the capacity of the system, and they're making recommendations to
    • 03:53:24make improvements to the system? Well,
    • 03:53:27they mentioned the turbidity equipment. They mentioned many of the other things you talked about
    • 03:53:31in your operating reports. So you consider these,
    • 03:53:35you know, actions that need to be taken to make sure that you continue
    • 03:53:39to have quality water supply. Yes,
    • 03:53:42ma'am. So the difference between the turbidity meters and
    • 03:53:46chlorine analysis equipment,
    • 03:53:50that equipment is more operating equipment. And so
    • 03:53:53they also take a look at any capacities in the system of the actual tanks
    • 03:53:58themselves and that sort of thing. So we view.
    • 03:54:01We view the chlorine analyzer, the turbidity
    • 03:54:04meter, as replacement of just operating equipment.
    • 03:54:09And this report also talks about. I haven't read it in
    • 03:54:12detail here. I apologize for that.
    • 03:54:16But they also take a look, again, at the size
    • 03:54:19of tanks, size of the hydromatic tank,
    • 03:54:23and various other tanks in the system.
    • 03:54:26So, again, differentiating between maintenance
    • 03:54:30items that are replaced, which are the turbidity meters and chlorine
    • 03:54:34meters, and maybe in this kind of report, they'll talk about actual
    • 03:54:39increasing and maybe doubling the size of capacity of
    • 03:54:42tanks and so forth. But in terms of the health of the system and the
    • 03:54:46ability to provide quality service, it's important
    • 03:54:49that not only you have the ongoing operational
    • 03:54:53elements in place as well as. So, I mean,
    • 03:54:57in your mind, does this kind of screen the need for capital
    • 03:55:02investment, capital improvement? Yes, ma'am, that's correct.
    • 03:55:05Absolutely. It's a funding. I'm kind of surprised that you're not familiar with this
    • 03:55:10report. Well, we, I don't know that
    • 03:55:13I've seen this particular report. This probably went to my operations
    • 03:55:17manager. But the,
    • 03:55:20again, in our contract,
    • 03:55:23it provides that the utility will provide the necessary equipment for
    • 03:55:27us to operate within TCEQ guidelines. And as
    • 03:55:30you can tell, we, multiple months we've been saying we need disturbing
    • 03:55:34meter, we need this chlorine analyzer.
    • 03:55:38And so at that point in time, that's about all
    • 03:55:42we can do. We don't have the ability to go in and replace
    • 03:55:46those items and force the utility to go purchase them, that sort of
    • 03:55:50thing. So again, do you see it in your purview to do asset management?
    • 03:55:54Do you see it in your purview as one of your responsibilities
    • 03:55:58to provide asset management advice,
    • 03:56:02both capital improvement as well as ongoing operating procedures and
    • 03:56:06operating? Yeah, typically when we talk to bit earlier
    • 03:56:09about the engineer coming in, we made an early recommendation to the
    • 03:56:13board of directors that they needed an engineer to come in and look
    • 03:56:16at the entire system to find out what equipment is
    • 03:56:20operating properly, what might need to be replaced in the near term,
    • 03:56:24what probably would need to be replaced in the long term, and also provide
    • 03:56:28us with a plan, the corporation with a plan to say,
    • 03:56:31as you add additional connections, what equipment are you going going
    • 03:56:34to need? And we were able to get a proposal.
    • 03:56:38Unfortunately, the board never acted on that proposal.
    • 03:56:41We lost that proposal. We recently had a second engineer come
    • 03:56:45in and take a look at the plant and so forth,
    • 03:56:49and he visited with the corporation's attorney
    • 03:56:52and he decided with all of the difficulties that were occurring out there, he did
    • 03:56:56not want to do that. So, but that's really what needs to occur.
    • 03:57:01That's who would bank recommendations on all the pieces of equipment that
    • 03:57:04are there, sizes of those equipment, and what would happen in the
    • 03:57:08future. And that's not in our purview, not something we would do.
    • 03:57:11So your purview is just day to day operations? Yes,
    • 03:57:14ma'am, that's correct. Yeah. We're basically
    • 03:57:18operating people and repair people for all the equipment
    • 03:57:21within the plant. But we don't design plants.
    • 03:57:25We don't evaluate plants. The condition of them,
    • 03:57:28that's an engineering function. And so in your background,
    • 03:57:33I didn't hear anything about licensed TCEQ operator.
    • 03:57:37Are your. Yeah, so our. We are a licensed water
    • 03:57:41and wastewater operating company through TCEQ. And anyone
    • 03:57:45that is operating that plan is a licensed TCEQ trained operator,
    • 03:57:49and we only send lots of jobs. We do have
    • 03:57:52some repair people that work in the system itself. They don't do
    • 03:57:56any type of plant operations, chemical adjustments,
    • 03:57:59analysis, reporting, etcetera. They're all licensed TCEQ operators.
    • 03:58:05So you do have some outstanding TCEQ issues, not just
    • 03:58:08on the operating side, but also on the capital side,
    • 03:58:12on the physical plant side. I'm asking.
    • 03:58:17I can't speak to that, but I have to speak to the operator. Do we
    • 03:58:20have violations out there? Do we have recommendations?
    • 03:58:23You're playing. So, I mean, I'm asking you. I mean, do we have, do we
    • 03:58:27have recommendations to enhance? Absolutely.
    • 03:58:30One of the things that we had to prioritize is where do we then spend
    • 03:58:34our money? We were, you know, holding off as best as
    • 03:58:38we could to. We weren't
    • 03:58:41publishing any violations. We knew this was presented
    • 03:58:45to us about. Is there a temporary solution that
    • 03:58:48can be put forth? Do we be able to get
    • 03:58:52that capital? Absolutely. I mean, we listen to them on
    • 03:58:56a monthly basis. They come to our board meetings. And as far as.
    • 03:59:01And you heard testimony, as far as what we've seen, there is no
    • 03:59:05TCEQ violation,
    • 03:59:09and we're within the guidelines. Are there recommendations?
    • 03:59:13Absolutely. I mean, you can go out there and see the plan.
    • 03:59:16You go, oh, I can recommend this, this and this. So,
    • 03:59:28commissioners, any further questions?
    • 03:59:32So, as the operator, do you have people that are at their facilities
    • 03:59:37every day? Yes, sir, that's correct.
    • 03:59:40Monitoring everything that's going on. How many, like,
    • 03:59:43facility sites are there water wastewater
    • 03:59:49sites that are inspected every day?
    • 03:59:52Yes, sir. So there's the intake structure on the lake where the water is
    • 03:59:55actually pumped from the lake to the plant. There's a plant facility itself.
    • 03:59:59On the water side, storage facility,
    • 04:00:03and then on the wastewater side, I guess. Are we talking wastewater also?
    • 04:00:08Yes, sir. On the wastewater side, wastewater treatment plant, there were
    • 04:00:12first lift stations pumping to the plant, and then the wastewater
    • 04:00:16treatment plant, and then disposal fields. And my people
    • 04:00:19inspect those each day.
    • 04:00:24Is that common? I mean, if you had, if there's more technology,
    • 04:00:27do you have people in those at all times? Is that what you do with
    • 04:00:31your other utilities? Yes, that's correct.
    • 04:00:40Okay, Commissioners, doesn't look like anything further for this witness,
    • 04:00:44sir, you're released. You may step out. Quick reminder.
    • 04:00:50Quick reminder about not conversing about this until all the witness testimony
    • 04:00:54concludes. Miss Lander, do you have another
    • 04:00:57witness? I do, but can I actually get a quick time
    • 04:01:01check, please? I have about 27,
    • 04:01:05and that includes closing, of course.
    • 04:01:08And for Windermere,
    • 04:01:11I believe he has around 35.
    • 04:01:14Okay, this is not very scientific.
    • 04:01:21We're all just doing our best. Let's try to keep it under 30
    • 04:01:24minutes from that. Okay?
    • 04:01:28I think I'd like to go ahead and call Miss Flunker,
    • 04:01:32please.
    • 04:01:45Can I ask you again what, what item number
    • 04:01:49the budget was? The budget is, I believe,
    • 04:01:52Windermere exhibit number one. Thank you. You're welcome.
    • 04:01:56Yes, number one.
    • 04:02:21Actually, if you wouldn't mind just taking a seat right here.
    • 04:03:02All right, Miss Flunker. I'm going to hand you a binder that hopefully
    • 04:03:05will make it a little bit easier to move through this process,
    • 04:03:10as easy as it can be. So I'm going to
    • 04:03:14hand you that. And just so
    • 04:03:17you know, we do need to keep this moving fairly quickly. I think we only
    • 04:03:21have about 30 minutes left, and so I don't want
    • 04:03:24to keep the Commissioners or Judge Denmark or anyone else any
    • 04:03:28longer than we have to. So first and foremost, can you tell me
    • 04:03:31about your connection to Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation?
    • 04:03:34Yes, I am a.
    • 04:03:38I am a member and a shareholder. I've been a
    • 04:03:42member and shareholder for 19 years.
    • 04:03:46And I've also was the ratepayer representative in
    • 04:03:50PUC Docket 50788. Okay.
    • 04:03:53And you said that you're the ratepayer representative. Did you pluck that title
    • 04:03:57from thin air or how did that happen? No, I didn't.
    • 04:04:01There were over 50 ratepayers in Windermere Oaks that
    • 04:04:05signed a petition requesting that I be a ratepayer representative
    • 04:04:09that met the 10% threshold. Okay. And how long
    • 04:04:13have you worked in the water industry?
    • 04:04:16I started my career working in the water industry for Texas Rural
    • 04:04:20Water Association as a paralegal? I was for about three and a half years.
    • 04:04:24And then, of course, as a ratepayer representative for
    • 04:04:28about four and a half years. Okay. Just on average,
    • 04:04:31how long would you say you have spent per week since the rate appeal began
    • 04:04:36working on Windermere PUC
    • 04:04:39matters? On average,
    • 04:04:43probably 10 hours. 10 hours a week. 10 hours
    • 04:04:46a week. Over the course of four and a half years.
    • 04:04:50Four years. How many hours, do you think? In totality?
    • 04:04:54I would say probably a rough estimate.
    • 04:04:57Probably 2400. Okay, so you would say that
    • 04:05:01you're pretty knowledgeable about the laws that apply to Windermere.
    • 04:05:04Yeah. Water Supply Corporation. Yes. Yes.
    • 04:05:07Okay. Why I,
    • 04:05:10so many filings? Why the rate appeal?
    • 04:05:13Why the CCN amendment docket?
    • 04:05:16Why the refund surcharge docket?
    • 04:05:20Why are you here? Well, like I said before,
    • 04:05:25I'm a member, I'm a shareholder, and water supply corporations
    • 04:05:29are these unique utilities in the state of Texas where
    • 04:05:32it's member owned and member controlled. So we own
    • 04:05:36the utility and so we have a stake in
    • 04:05:40whether it fails or it's successful. And because
    • 04:05:44I have that experience, I have a stake in this
    • 04:05:48corporation. And, you know, if I
    • 04:05:52think I can help out or if I can get involved to kind of
    • 04:05:56steer the ship the right way, I definitely wanted to do that and I had
    • 04:05:59the support of the members asking need to get involved. Okay. And so when
    • 04:06:03you saw that there were issues in the CCN amendment docket and the refund surcharge
    • 04:06:07docket for the rate appeal, why did
    • 04:06:11you submit filings in those dockets? Because of the
    • 04:06:15information or the filings were inaccurate. The filings
    • 04:06:18were not correct. Okay. And before getting involved in the PC dockets,
    • 04:06:22did you try to let Windermere know that there were issues with the filings?
    • 04:06:25Yes. Okay. Was this before, during, or after your time as
    • 04:06:29a board member? It was all before, during and after.
    • 04:06:33Okay. How did they respond? Typically, they wouldn't respond. If they did,
    • 04:06:36they said, we've got it handled. Okay.
    • 04:06:39And when you were on the board and you were trying to sort
    • 04:06:43of get things together to submit things for
    • 04:06:46the compliance docket, how did you prepare for that?
    • 04:06:50Can you repeat that please? Sure. In trying to sort of get organized
    • 04:06:54to submit filings for the compliance docket, whenever you
    • 04:06:58were on the board, how did you prepare to do
    • 04:07:02that? So at the time, once I,
    • 04:07:06and this is, I was on the board for a
    • 04:07:10short period of time this year, and when
    • 04:07:15I did get on the board, I knew that there was a lot to
    • 04:07:19a lot of obligations on Windermere in that docket.
    • 04:07:22And so I put together a spreadsheet. And of every
    • 04:07:26single obligation, what was required and the date
    • 04:07:30and how often it was reoccurring. Okay. To the best of your knowledge,
    • 04:07:33has Windemere satisfied any of those requirements? No. No.
    • 04:07:37Okay, let us take a quick look at,
    • 04:07:41I think, staff exhibit number
    • 04:07:45one. So if we could turn to page six
    • 04:07:48of nine, or it's also marked as page seven
    • 04:07:52at the bottom. And I want to take a look at finding a fact number
    • 04:07:5541. So in that finding of fact, does it
    • 04:07:59indicate that Windermere acknowledged that it was providing service to non
    • 04:08:03members on page 41
    • 04:08:07of finding a fact 41. Okay,
    • 04:08:13tariff change. I'm sorry, I think I'm
    • 04:08:16on the wrong exhibit. Would you actually, would you just read exhibit one,
    • 04:08:20finding of fact 41 for me, please? Okay. Finding a
    • 04:08:24fact 41. 41. Within six months following the
    • 04:08:27commission's entry of an order approving this agreement, Windermere agrees to file
    • 04:08:31an application for a minor tariff change requesting the Commission
    • 04:08:35approve a revised tariff that ensures the service is provided
    • 04:08:38in compliance with Texas water code section 13.00,224.
    • 04:08:44As part of this tariff, tenants must either become members
    • 04:08:47or receive service as incident of tenancy. Okay.
    • 04:08:51Are you aware of any revision to Windermere's tariffs since the final order
    • 04:08:55in Docket 55454? No.
    • 04:08:59If you take a look at, let's see, staff exhibit
    • 04:09:0314 at page either six or five
    • 04:09:07of seven, because the page numbering is not great.
    • 04:09:11That is, I believe, Windermere's responses
    • 04:09:15to a series of RFIs filed in Docket 55840,
    • 04:09:19which is the CCN amendment docket. If you
    • 04:09:23look at, I believe, RFI 140,
    • 04:09:28does it indicate to you that Windermere was providing service to non members?
    • 04:09:32Yes. To Spectrum Telco, used for the
    • 04:09:36hydrant for water to be used for their directional drilling machines.
    • 04:09:40And is spectrum a member of Windermere Oaks?
    • 04:09:43No, they're not. Did spectrum pay Windermere for the water that it
    • 04:09:47used? It appears in this response,
    • 04:09:52I think. I don't know for sure,
    • 04:09:55but according to that response,
    • 04:10:03CRFI 143 for details on payments to
    • 04:10:07Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation. Okay, thank you.
    • 04:10:11So, in addition, I know that you
    • 04:10:15are familiar with the commission's interchange. So to
    • 04:10:20your knowledge, has Windermere filed an updated tariff since it changed
    • 04:10:24its rates in 2020? No. Has it filed an updated
    • 04:10:28tariff since this Commission set its rates in docket 50788 earlier
    • 04:10:31this year? No, they haven't. Okay, so based on what you know,
    • 04:10:35is Windermere adhering to Texas Water Code 13.136c,
    • 04:10:39which requires water supply corporations to file copies of their tariffs
    • 04:10:42with the Commission? No, they're nothing compliant with that.
    • 04:10:45Okay. And let's see.
    • 04:10:51Let's talk a little bit about Docket 50788,
    • 04:10:55which is the rate appeal.
    • 04:10:58Windermere has indicated that it is struggling
    • 04:11:02financially. So I want to look at staff exhibit
    • 04:11:0624, which is the final order at 32
    • 04:11:10of 33, three ordering paragraph number 424.
    • 04:11:16Staff exhibit 24 at 32 of 33.
    • 04:11:25Do you have a copy? I don't have a copy in here of 50788.
    • 04:11:29Let's see. I do so.
    • 04:11:37Oh, here it is. Okay, so page 32 of 33,
    • 04:11:41ordering paragraph number four.
    • 04:11:47Can you tell me what that says with regard to how Windermere is supposed to
    • 04:11:51recover its rate case expense surcharge? The Commission approves
    • 04:11:54a monthly surcharge of $39.21
    • 04:11:58per connection to recover $478,000,
    • 04:12:01$184.04 in the rate case expenses.
    • 04:12:04Windermere occurred in this proceeding through January 31,
    • 04:12:082023. Okay, great. Can we take a look at staff exhibit 22,
    • 04:12:12please?
    • 04:12:18And this is the director's report that was
    • 04:12:22filed as
    • 04:12:26exhibit 22. It's the September director's
    • 04:12:29report. Have you reviewed this document?
    • 04:12:32I have. And did
    • 04:12:35you review this document to see how many connections
    • 04:12:40are not being charged the surcharge or were not charged the surcharge in
    • 04:12:44the month of September? Yes. And have you done the math to know
    • 04:12:48about how much money Windermere is not collecting per
    • 04:12:51month? In surcharges, it's about $1,000. Okay,
    • 04:12:55so about $12,000 a year. Correct.
    • 04:12:58Okay. Let's talk about the rates and revenue established by Docket 50788.
    • 04:13:03So the rates were designed based on 271
    • 04:13:08water and 245 sewer.
    • 04:13:11And according to, I believe,
    • 04:13:14Windermere exhibit number eleven, there are 301 water
    • 04:13:18and there are 280 sewer. Are you familiar
    • 04:13:21with that exhibit, exhibit eleven? Yes.
    • 04:13:25Yes. Okay, do you see those numbers?
    • 04:13:33Yep. Okay. So my question for you is,
    • 04:13:36if the rates were designed at 271 and 245,
    • 04:13:40and they are now at 301 and 280,
    • 04:13:43how much more money is Windermere recovering in base
    • 04:13:47rates than the commission anticipated when
    • 04:13:50it set the rates in March?
    • 04:13:54I believe my calculations it was for, like, water and sewer.
    • 04:13:58I believe it was like $24,000. And have you done the math to
    • 04:14:01know how much more money they're collecting in volumetric rates?
    • 04:14:05I think that was around $17,000 calculated plus
    • 04:14:10$24,000, plus the $12,000 they're leaving on the table
    • 04:14:13in a surcharge, that brings us to what,
    • 04:14:16$53,000. Is that correct? Correct.
    • 04:14:19Okay. And do
    • 04:14:23you think that saying that a water bill is $7 paints an
    • 04:14:27accurate picture of Windermere's financial situation? It does
    • 04:14:30not. Okay, let's take a look at staff exhibit 19.
    • 04:14:39Okay. Okay. So these are. Have you looked through these
    • 04:14:43before? And these are sample
    • 04:14:46water and sewer bills for Windermere Oaks? Yes. Okay, great. Can you
    • 04:14:49just turn through those for me and tell me some
    • 04:14:53of the total amounts for bills that you see?
    • 04:14:5760, 61, 47, 49.
    • 04:15:01We've got $104.26. And they all have the sewer
    • 04:15:05surcharge on them in the credit. So they're,
    • 04:15:09I think, from when the rate, new rates
    • 04:15:12went in. $61.25.
    • 04:15:14$30.53, $72.75, $129,
    • 04:15:22$78, $231.51.
    • 04:15:25Okay. I think that gives us a pretty good idea that,
    • 04:15:29again, $7 is not an average bill
    • 04:15:32for a Windermere ratepayer.
    • 04:15:36Let's look at.
    • 04:15:42Actually, tell me this. Did you notice anything else that was strange
    • 04:15:45about those bills?
    • 04:15:49I did. At the bottom of the bill, it'll say the
    • 04:15:54billing period from two.
    • 04:15:57And there's various. There's no consistency.
    • 04:16:01Some are 26 days, some are 28, 29, 30, 31, 32
    • 04:16:08there's no rhyme or reason. Okay. And are you familiar with Windermere's
    • 04:16:12tariff? I am. Okay. Can you tell me what the appropriate billing range
    • 04:16:16is, the date on which the billing periods are supposed to start?
    • 04:16:21It should be the 21st of each month to the 21st of the following
    • 04:16:25month. Is that what you see on any of those bills? I do not.
    • 04:16:28Okay. And so do you
    • 04:16:32know that volumetric charges for water are
    • 04:16:35dependent on the amount of money or the amount of water that you use per
    • 04:16:38month? Yes. Okay. And so if somebody used more.
    • 04:16:42More money or, sorry, more water in a given
    • 04:16:46month because the billing period was longer, they could
    • 04:16:50end up paying more money than they were supposed to. Correct. And then the other
    • 04:16:53way around, if it was a shorter billing period, they might end up paying less
    • 04:16:56than they should have. Correct. And that could undermine the consistency of
    • 04:17:00Windermere's revenue? Yes. Okay. And I'm curious, at any
    • 04:17:04time, have you done the math to know whether, based on Windermere's 2023
    • 04:17:08actuals less extraordinary expenses, which I believe
    • 04:17:11are represented in Windermere exhibit one.
    • 04:17:15That's the budget exhibit.
    • 04:17:21Have you done the math to know if Windermere should have been able to cover
    • 04:17:24its operating expenses in 2024?
    • 04:17:28Yeah. Yes. Yes. And what was your conclusion?
    • 04:17:35That based on the
    • 04:17:39revenue, that they should be able
    • 04:17:42to meet what the revenue requirement was from the rate appeal.
    • 04:17:45Okay. And did you share your conclusions
    • 04:17:49about Windermere's projected revenue with the board and the rest of your
    • 04:17:53community? I did. Okay. And during your time as a board
    • 04:17:57member, did you ever put together a document showing how the new rates, revenue,
    • 04:18:00and surcharges would impact Windermere's revenue? I did. Okay.
    • 04:18:03And is that staff exhibit 27?
    • 04:18:07It is. Okay. Yes, that's it.
    • 04:18:11About how much did you anticipate Windermere would bring in
    • 04:18:14per month once the new rates were in effect? I don't have 27.
    • 04:18:21I go from 26, 25 to 20.
    • 04:18:25That was the binder for my examination
    • 04:18:29of you. Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you.
    • 04:18:32Yeah, no problem. Miss Walker, about how much per month or
    • 04:18:36how much per year did you anticipate that Windermere would bring in
    • 04:18:39in revenue once the new rates were in place? I had
    • 04:18:45$10,000 in base rates and I had 11,000
    • 04:18:48in the tier rates. And that was being very conservative.
    • 04:18:53And that was based on the 271 water and sewer,
    • 04:18:57I believe, or actually, no, that was based on the 301.
    • 04:19:00So I think my final was at 360,000.
    • 04:19:05And like I said, it was very conservative because it
    • 04:19:11wasn't taking into consideration anything beyond, like,
    • 04:19:13301 or other
    • 04:19:18types of revenue. Okay, so.
    • 04:19:21And you shared that with the board and the rest of the membership? I presented
    • 04:19:24the annual membership meeting. Okay. So now
    • 04:19:28that we have a handle on the amount that you anticipated for Windermere's monthly revenue,
    • 04:19:32let's take a look at exhibit 21 for a second.
    • 04:19:39Will you please read me the fourth complete
    • 04:19:43paragraph?
    • 04:19:46Okay. This is, I guess, from Jeff Walker to Merritt Lander.
    • 04:19:50It's an email and it says, no corporation consensus
    • 04:19:54can, no corporation can't sustain
    • 04:19:58on that amount of revenue for water and sewer services.
    • 04:20:01This sustainability data was all out there in our operational
    • 04:20:05cost report from 2019 to 2023.
    • 04:20:08Didn't anyone from PUC realize that cap revenue,
    • 04:20:12capitalized revenue would cut by 95% with these
    • 04:20:15new rate refunds and that operating costs would remain the same?
    • 04:20:19Real good analysis, PUC. Hint, I, along with 50% of
    • 04:20:23the membership, used to pay $180 a
    • 04:20:27month prior to the rate appeal taking effect. No corporation
    • 04:20:31survives on 95% revenue reduction.
    • 04:20:34Thank you again, PUC, for putting us in this situation. And please don't
    • 04:20:38blame the previous board. This is pure data analysis.
    • 04:20:42Okay. Let's take a look at Windermere exhibit one, which is Windermere's
    • 04:20:452024 budget.
    • 04:20:48Can you tell me Windermere's total revenue for 2022?
    • 04:20:53Total revenue for 2022 is $700.
    • 04:20:58$705,881.
    • 04:21:00Okay. For 2023.
    • 04:21:05Actually, I take that back. Was it actual actual income
    • 04:21:10for 2022? It's actually $713,883.
    • 04:21:14And actual for 2023 is
    • 04:21:18$727,923.
    • 04:21:22$0.33. Okay. Would you accept my representation that a
    • 04:21:2595% reduction of $714,000,
    • 04:21:29which is the lower of the two previous years, is $35,000
    • 04:21:33and $35,700?
    • 04:21:36Yes. Okay. And let's take a look at Windermere exhibit
    • 04:21:40three, which is their monthly p and l year to date.
    • 04:21:47Could you please tell me their total income for
    • 04:21:51January through September of 2024.
    • 04:21:55Total income is $388,939
    • 04:22:00and $0.61. Okay, so just for the
    • 04:22:04record,
    • 04:22:04$388,000.
    • 04:22:07$388,939 is significantly
    • 04:22:11higher than $35,700. Which is the
    • 04:22:155% that Mister Walker represented Windermere
    • 04:22:18would be bringing in. Correct. Okay, Miss Lander,
    • 04:22:22I'll just let you know. You've got about nine minutes left. Nine minutes
    • 04:22:25left. Okay, let's see. We've talked about the boil water notices.
    • 04:22:32Let's see. In your experience as a ratepayer rep and a member
    • 04:22:35of Windermere, has Windermere satisfied its obligations to this
    • 04:22:38commission? I don't believe they have. Has it filed inconsistent
    • 04:22:42information repeatedly over the last four and a half years?
    • 04:22:46Yes. Okay. And in the numerous Windermere dockets that you have followed,
    • 04:22:50have you seen repeated instances of Windemere ignoring commission
    • 04:22:53orders? Yes. Do you want to see Windermere fail?
    • 04:22:58I do not. Does it benefit you in any way if Windemere fails?
    • 04:23:02No. In your opinion, what is the best way for Windemere
    • 04:23:05to succeed? Adhere to Commission
    • 04:23:10orders, be compliant with their tariff, their bylaws,
    • 04:23:16the infrastructure,
    • 04:23:19repair all the issues we
    • 04:23:23have. And put the utility before anything
    • 04:23:26else providing safe drinking water.
    • 04:23:29Okay, pass the witness. Mister Walker,
    • 04:23:33when you're ready. Miss Flunker,
    • 04:23:38you stated that you're the ratepayer representative and have a petition. Do you have that
    • 04:23:41petition on you that was signed by the 50 members?
    • 04:23:45Okay, I'm just. I just. You re entered it as that
    • 04:23:49you had a copy of the petition that was signed by 10% of the
    • 04:23:53membership. I don't think I stated I had a copy. Well,
    • 04:23:56you stated that you had got a petition for it. I said it was filed.
    • 04:24:00Okay. It was filed in PUC Docket 50788.
    • 04:24:04Okay. That was for the rate appeal. That's correct.
    • 04:24:07Okay. You mentioned something
    • 04:24:11about in there. When Miss Lander was referring to
    • 04:24:14the spectrum, to the
    • 04:24:18accounts for clarification purposes. That was a subcontractor.
    • 04:24:22It was under account number en, which was
    • 04:24:26the subcontractor to spectrum.
    • 04:24:30To provide water for their drilling services, for the POA,
    • 04:24:35to provide a fiber optic capability within the. Within the
    • 04:24:39community. And once. And that was just
    • 04:24:42an account that was put in place? Objection. I believe that the opposing party is
    • 04:24:46testifying. Sustained. Okay. I'm just asking
    • 04:24:50for clarification from. Just be a question. Yeah, I'll state in a question.
    • 04:24:54I'm sorry you mentioned it at spectrum. Are you aware of
    • 04:24:57enen as the subcontractor?
    • 04:25:04If that was what was in the RFI response.
    • 04:25:07Okay, so that I would take that as a no. That you were unaware
    • 04:25:11that spectrum didn't have an account. Objection. That's a mischaracterization
    • 04:25:15of the witnesses testimony. Sustained. Can you please rephrase?
    • 04:25:19She said that spectrum was one of the accounts. And I'm just
    • 04:25:23clarifying that that is not true. Spectrum is not one of the
    • 04:25:26accounts in our log.
    • 04:25:29But I will move on. Do we have.
    • 04:25:33In what you saw in the. Or what you'll hear from Brian?
    • 04:25:37You mentioned $478,000 debt that was due
    • 04:25:41based upon the rate order. Is that correct?
    • 04:25:45Do we do. Are you aware that we still carry that on our books?
    • 04:25:49I don't understand your question. Do we have an obligation to Lloyd
    • 04:25:53Gosling for over $478,000 in
    • 04:25:57legal fees from the rate appeal?
    • 04:26:01I mean, you're the one who. Yeah, I mean, is that. Can you
    • 04:26:04point me. Can you point me to. Can you point me to. I mean,
    • 04:26:07is that a true statement? Can you point me to an exhibit?
    • 04:26:10I don't know that. Can you point me to an exhibit? That would be an
    • 04:26:13exhibit, I think, if it's not in the P&L or it's
    • 04:26:16in the general ledger, it should be noted in there that we have an obligation
    • 04:26:20to Lloyd Gosling or not. Yeah, Lloyd Gosling. Of over $500,000.
    • 04:26:25If you can show me an exhibit.
    • 04:26:28Exhibit two. Sorry, three.
    • 04:26:33Your exhibit three? Yes.
    • 04:26:38If you can find it in there, or I can move on to another.
    • 04:26:41To another question.
    • 04:26:46Where would I go? Let's just move on to another question in regards to
    • 04:26:50exhibit 22 that was identified in the director's report.
    • 04:26:53Can you identify in this report what
    • 04:26:57the total receipts were for that month, which was the
    • 04:27:01month that was being. Being read? It's exhibit 22.
    • 04:27:06Is it? Staffs 22? Yes. Staffs,
    • 04:27:0922. Okay. Can you tell me what page.
    • 04:27:12Opening page. Director's report. Can you tell me their total receipts amount
    • 04:27:16that we received for that given time period?
    • 04:27:21Okay, so that is for
    • 04:27:24water, sewer, and surcharge,
    • 04:27:28late charge adjustments, water, credit, sewer, credit,
    • 04:27:32tax. It says $22,164
    • 04:27:38based on 246 accounts.
    • 04:27:44If I can provide clarification, that's how many bills went out, how many total receipts
    • 04:27:48of that account were received? 22. I'll help
    • 04:27:51you out. It's down, halfway down the pages. $22,164,
    • 04:27:55of which 246 people would pay that.
    • 04:27:58That's what our monthly revenue is that we receive.
    • 04:28:03That is, total receipts on account. And the
    • 04:28:07number of accounts is listed at 246. Does that include standby
    • 04:28:10fees and everything else? And late. That is everything that
    • 04:28:14we get into the bank on a monthly basis. So we
    • 04:28:18don't have receive the numbers that were.
    • 04:28:22That were brought forth by that. In regards to a usage
    • 04:28:25breakdown on page three of that document, you talked about usage
    • 04:28:29breakdown and specifically my bill of
    • 04:28:34what I represent is a 95% objection outside
    • 04:28:37the scope. Well, you went to
    • 04:28:41my bill and you said that. Is that a fair representation
    • 04:28:46of my bill being 95% of what I was paying before?
    • 04:28:50And I'm just clarifying because she testified to it
    • 04:28:54that she was looking at bills in here that you had provided
    • 04:28:59and you were clarifying or you were having her
    • 04:29:02read my email to you about that. I was
    • 04:29:06just getting a percentage of people that were in
    • 04:29:09my category of the type of bill that I pay
    • 04:29:14the usage, because it's all about usage. I don't. I don't hit the
    • 04:29:17top tier as far as usage. I'm at the lower tier.
    • 04:29:21So I'm just clarifying the bills that were being
    • 04:29:25paid. Do you have a question? Yeah, my question is,
    • 04:29:28do you know it was sustained.
    • 04:29:30Sustained. Let me. I'll just rephrase it.
    • 04:29:33You stated that, or Miss Lander stated, but I'll go to the witness
    • 04:29:38stated that the email that was read by Miss Flunker
    • 04:29:42was misconstrued. That was
    • 04:29:45my bill. Do you know the percentage of people that have a
    • 04:29:49similar bill to mine?
    • 04:29:54We discussed your bill based on the
    • 04:29:57charge, and we discussed the billing,
    • 04:30:02the dates. That's what I discussed on that.
    • 04:30:05I didn't talk about usage. Okay.
    • 04:30:09But do you have an idea of how many percentage of our
    • 04:30:12users are at a similar bill
    • 04:30:16as mine within the community? I'll be honest,
    • 04:30:20I didn't look at your usage. I wasn't focusing on usage. Okay. Well,
    • 04:30:23in the examples that were put forth in here that you were commenting
    • 04:30:27on, there were discussions about bills and
    • 04:30:30rates. And were all of them pertaining to mine
    • 04:30:34as being $7? You brought up various, you commented on
    • 04:30:37various bills that were in here. I'm just trying to understand how
    • 04:30:42many bills, how many users have a similar bill? As to mine,
    • 04:30:46I don't know because I didn't look at your water
    • 04:30:50usage. I looked at what you were charged for your amount that was
    • 04:30:54due. That's what I looked at. Well, for clarification, you can find
    • 04:30:58this page on usage breakdown of the 320 accounts that
    • 04:31:02use less than x number of gallons of water,
    • 04:31:06and you can figure out what percentage of users have a common bill
    • 04:31:09of mine. That's all I'm trying to get to. And you
    • 04:31:13stated in your testimony that there was a lot of people that were generating revenue.
    • 04:31:17But I'm finding in the usage report or in the director's report
    • 04:31:21that we're not generating that much revenue. It's clearly right there. Total receipts of accounts
    • 04:31:25is brought forth there of $22,000. Yeah, we're only reporting
    • 04:31:28246 accounts. We're 40 short. But I
    • 04:31:32just wanted to make sure we clarified that testimony. Other than that,
    • 04:31:36I have nothing else passing the witness.
    • 04:31:40You're done. Questions for her. Do you have any redirect?
    • 04:31:44No. Commissioners,
    • 04:31:47do you have any questions for this witness? Real quick? He just said
    • 04:31:51246 accounts were 40 short. Does that mean they can't find 40 of
    • 04:31:55the charges they're supposed to be charging? What is, what does that mean
    • 04:31:58to you? That's a really good question. I'm a little confused by that,
    • 04:32:01too. I can provide clarification. You're not the witness here.
    • 04:32:05It's the total receipts on accounts. It says $22,164.
    • 04:32:09And in that column next to, to a number of accounts, it says 246.
    • 04:32:13We know that they have,
    • 04:32:17I guess it was 301. So. And,
    • 04:32:21yeah, I mean, it's kind of confusing if you look at it, but at the
    • 04:32:25bottom it says total receipts, or in the middle part of it,
    • 04:32:28246. 246.
    • 04:32:32The receipts are based on 246 rate payers.
    • 04:32:38Okay. If you would like clarification on that. No, thank you.
    • 04:32:41Okay. Because again, it says you're not the witness. I'm sorry.
    • 04:32:44It says receipts. I had a question
    • 04:32:48on that same page. The director's report, exhibit 22.
    • 04:32:51Yes. And that says collection amounts. Amount owed,
    • 04:32:54$34,205.40.
    • 04:32:58Number of accounts 498. Can you explain
    • 04:33:01that? For 498 is that account
    • 04:33:05months that are in arrears.
    • 04:33:10I could give you what my opinion is, and, you know,
    • 04:33:14I could take a stab, but because
    • 04:33:17Windermere, you know, it just depends. They generate new customer
    • 04:33:21numbers. Sometimes they reuse a customer number.
    • 04:33:25So I think they're, if I'm not mistaken, they're like,
    • 04:33:28at 816 right now. And so if you
    • 04:33:31do the math, they've got 301. So subtract
    • 04:33:35those numbers. So maybe there's money
    • 04:33:39left on the table with these previous members, whether it's $10
    • 04:33:44or it's that they owe,
    • 04:33:48because, of course, you can't collect from somebody else. That membership is
    • 04:33:51tied to that person, not to the property.
    • 04:33:54And so it's possible that maybe they
    • 04:33:58just left and moved out and there was money that wasn't collected.
    • 04:34:02That's how I would maybe consider that.
    • 04:34:06So again, so, like, turned off accounts, which is right
    • 04:34:09above that which is $12,451. And collection accounts,
    • 04:34:13$34,205. I mean, if we're.
    • 04:34:18Are these just totally for a water supply company that
    • 04:34:22has financial problems? I think they would be trying to
    • 04:34:25get as much revenue as they possibly could from these. Is there
    • 04:34:29any. Am I understanding that correctly? One would think. One would
    • 04:34:33think they also do charge something called a standby fee,
    • 04:34:37sometimes referred to like a reserve service. And that's about
    • 04:34:41$230. So there could be people
    • 04:34:45in arrears on that. But are they given an account number?
    • 04:34:49I would think they do have one based on the fact that they're billing them.
    • 04:34:53It has to be tied to an account number. So that's a possibility
    • 04:34:57that there's quite a lot of money out there for in arrears,
    • 04:35:01standby fees in addition to previous water bills.
    • 04:35:05It's hard to know that because they're not allocating it to specific
    • 04:35:09types of collection that
    • 04:35:13are in collection.
    • 04:35:21Commissioners. Any other questions? Miss Flunker,
    • 04:35:26we're done with you. If you want to go back to the
    • 04:35:30room and hang out. And then once. No speaking to anybody
    • 04:35:34else at this point. And then once witnessed testimony, which is almost done,
    • 04:35:41we'll let you back in. If you want to hear the closing at
    • 04:35:48this point, Miss Lander, you've got about eight
    • 04:35:52minutes for direct cross and close.
    • 04:35:55Mister Walker, you're getting right at the 20 minutes mark for
    • 04:36:00any witnesses. And close as well. I would
    • 04:36:03like. But she's still. She's still on. But I just want to
    • 04:36:06give everybody a time countdown.
    • 04:36:10Miss Lander, do you have any other witnesses? No other witnesses on direct.
    • 04:36:14I'm not going to call Mister Garceau. Okay, you're arresting at this point
    • 04:36:18or not. Rest cross. But okay.
    • 04:36:21Mister Walker, you may proceed with your first witness. Yeah, I'm going to
    • 04:36:24call Brian Garceau.
    • 04:37:09Good afternoon,
    • 04:37:13Mister Walker, you may proceed. Brian.
    • 04:37:16Can you state your name and your affiliation? My name is Brian
    • 04:37:19Garceau. I am a recent board member of
    • 04:37:23WOWSC.
    • 04:37:28And my question to you is,
    • 04:37:31over the last 90 to 120 days, you have been
    • 04:37:35diligently working on our financials.
    • 04:37:38Can you respond to how
    • 04:37:43that's been going and where we're at from a financial standpoint?
    • 04:37:46Sure. And good afternoon, commissioners. I do have a couple of
    • 04:37:50things to start out. I'm, as I mentioned, a volunteer
    • 04:37:54and appointed member of the BOD here,
    • 04:37:57Class D Water Corp. I was added to the board
    • 04:38:01in the Spring of this year. Objection. Non responsive.
    • 04:38:04Mister Walker simply asked what Mister Garceau's opinion of the
    • 04:38:08WOWSC's financial health was sustainable.
    • 04:38:12I didn't ask what the health of it was. I asked him for what he's
    • 04:38:16been doing from a reporting standpoint.
    • 04:38:21So if you can clarify what you've been doing and
    • 04:38:25what are you, what are, what are we reporting now as far
    • 04:38:28as our financials in both the p and l and g and l capability,
    • 04:38:31just so I'm clear, there was an objection to be proceeded.
    • 04:38:34Could I proceed? Am I able to proceed? He's now rephrased
    • 04:38:39the question. Yeah. Thank you very much. All right, so I've been working
    • 04:38:42with our accounting team for a few months, and more
    • 04:38:46recently also with our bookkeepers. We are making
    • 04:38:49pretty good progress toward getting our finances in order, but we have a
    • 04:38:52long way to go. The financial documents that we are receiving
    • 04:38:56now, month to month, and the supporting data are mature
    • 04:39:00enough that we have started sharing, reviewing these documents
    • 04:39:04in a facilitated manner with our members in our
    • 04:39:08business meetings. During this effort, I've also learned much about other
    • 04:39:12aspects of our corporation, where it regards our records.
    • 04:39:16Our records management and artifact storage have been a challenge,
    • 04:39:20but it has been improving. The problem has impacted our
    • 04:39:23ability to respond to various types of requests or to
    • 04:39:27use in support of initiatives such as our financial
    • 04:39:31and IRS audits that are now in play. Our accounting
    • 04:39:35basis our current accountants, who were brought in to begin
    • 04:39:39working with us at the start of this year, set us up
    • 04:39:43with the accrual method of basis of accounting. The former
    • 04:39:46accounting and board used the cash basis.
    • 04:39:50Our current bookkeepers are still on the cash basis in
    • 04:39:55their work. This hybrid situation effectually
    • 04:39:59binds, blinds the board to a
    • 04:40:02number of areas, and I'm currently working to bring bookkeeping into
    • 04:40:06the accrual method to achieve the complete picture that managers,
    • 04:40:10that's us through the board and our members, can use
    • 04:40:14to make more accurate business decisions before
    • 04:40:17proceeding. And as I introduce some of the current numbers
    • 04:40:21that we have, I need to mention that although I believe them
    • 04:40:25to be accurate, they are sourced from the updated financial
    • 04:40:29records from our accountant. We have financial audit in process now,
    • 04:40:33but that initiative has not completed. And so I need to let
    • 04:40:37you know and make clear that the numbers I mentioned have not
    • 04:40:40been audited. As far as liabilities go,
    • 04:40:44we have. Relative to our
    • 04:40:48small size, we have enormous liabilities,
    • 04:40:51specifically payables. Many are delinquent well over
    • 04:40:5490 days, and some go back to 2020.
    • 04:40:59We have over $500,000 in delinquent payables
    • 04:41:03right now, assets and depreciation. I found
    • 04:41:07no indication that the prior board, working on a cash basis,
    • 04:41:11maintain depreciation records and, of course, that would be expected
    • 04:41:15with the cash basis. So our asset depreciation is
    • 04:41:19incomplete, possibly also inaccurate. This is another area
    • 04:41:22of concern and another activity that will require significant
    • 04:41:26time investment on our parts. And it's one area where our
    • 04:41:30financial auditors are also struggling right now.
    • 04:41:34Our financial position as of the September close
    • 04:41:39is that we had $25,500 in
    • 04:41:43cash available. Our average
    • 04:41:46monthly spend this year to date is $11,000
    • 04:41:51per month. So some quick math would
    • 04:41:54tell you that as of the end of September, we have
    • 04:41:582.3 months available of
    • 04:42:01Canada. We are solvent overall
    • 04:42:05with $605,000 in equity. Of course, that's all
    • 04:42:08in assets. We have three outstanding bank loans with
    • 04:42:12a combined principal totaling $556,000.
    • 04:42:18And for these, we are paying interest only right now
    • 04:42:21and have been for several months, month to
    • 04:42:25month. There are many other areas where we have
    • 04:42:28a need for cash so that we can honor our obligations.
    • 04:42:32However, as mentioned, we have very limited and fast declining
    • 04:42:36available cash. I can also mention that
    • 04:42:40our financial audit cost to date is $17,000.
    • 04:42:45However, our auditors have essentially stalled about
    • 04:42:48two months ago, partially because we had
    • 04:42:52a request for them to talk to us about
    • 04:42:55their work product to date, and also their methodology, so that
    • 04:42:59we could measure their progress against the goal that
    • 04:43:02we expect of them producing a full
    • 04:43:05audit. That's my testimony. Okay,
    • 04:43:09a couple of clarification points. You mentioned a $500,000
    • 04:43:13debt. Do you know what that is? Is it there
    • 04:43:17some explanation? What is that? The majority of it?
    • 04:43:20Sure. The majority of it is legal fees, quite frankly,
    • 04:43:24and legal fees from the
    • 04:43:28court case, which I can never remember the name of. But essentially we
    • 04:43:32located, and I had our accountants add that as a liability.
    • 04:43:37This is an invoice that we received at the end of
    • 04:43:41last year, 500 something thousand dollars change.
    • 04:43:45And I know a good deal of that, is a 400 something
    • 04:43:48thousand dollars figure included in the ratepayer
    • 04:43:52case. So, yes, the mass of it is legal fees.
    • 04:43:56Fire legal fees. Are those the Lloyd Gosling that
    • 04:44:00assisted us? That's correct, yeah. Okay. You mentioned
    • 04:44:04that. You mentioned $11,500 number. Is that
    • 04:44:09what we're in the hole each month, month on? Yes. And the way
    • 04:44:12I derive that figure is in
    • 04:44:16our case, again, because it's a hybrid kind of accounting that
    • 04:44:19we have going on right now, I'm able to take the
    • 04:44:23net income at the end of each month
    • 04:44:26and add it up for the period. We have numbers that should be
    • 04:44:30accurate from January through September. So I take the total for
    • 04:44:34that period, divide it by nine and I can tell you
    • 04:44:38on average, which of course gets more accurate, more months. You go
    • 04:44:42on average $11,000 negative every
    • 04:44:46month. And you're pretty confident of
    • 04:44:50those, of these new numbers that you've been producing.
    • 04:44:54It's the best we can do based upon the info on hand, which is why
    • 04:44:57I mentioned the records issue. Ok. And you're finding records both
    • 04:45:01physically as well as electronically?
    • 04:45:05I am not finding any physical records.
    • 04:45:09I have yet to see the place
    • 04:45:13where they are stored, which I am told is a big mess or was
    • 04:45:17a big mess and is getting working through that over
    • 04:45:21time. That's all the questions I have.
    • 04:45:24Miss Lander. Do you have any cross with
    • 04:45:28your limited time? I have actually
    • 04:45:32just one question. How much this year on legal
    • 04:45:35expenses? This year? I don't know
    • 04:45:38that number off the top of my head. So we have a new legal
    • 04:45:42team. I can say that. Actually, would you mind taking
    • 04:45:45a look at the exhibit that you guys filed? It's your year
    • 04:45:49to date, monthly P&L. Okay, perfect.
    • 04:45:54I do recall that it's about $24,000
    • 04:45:58per month. That went down drastically recently.
    • 04:46:03Okay. So I mean, it's quite extensive. Yeah, go ahead.
    • 04:46:06Okay, so it's
    • 04:46:09a real small font. So. It is a very small font.
    • 04:46:12I'd love to help you out. Once you get to that page, I can tell
    • 04:46:16you that it has been.
    • 04:46:20I don't want to testify for you, so.
    • 04:46:29Okay, so.
    • 04:46:321820, 1426, 2410
    • 04:46:35ten. Remind me what exhibit number that is.
    • 04:46:39Exhibit three. Okay. Windermere. Exhibit three.
    • 04:46:43Exhibit three, yes. $111,000 this
    • 04:46:47year, approximately. On legal expenses as of
    • 04:46:50September. As of September. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.
    • 04:46:54Any redirect, Mister Walker? Yeah, if I could.
    • 04:46:58Brian, do you have a breakdown of what those
    • 04:47:02legal expenses were covering for this year?
    • 04:47:06Tell me what you mean by breakdown.
    • 04:47:10What they were being spent on. I believe one exists. I didn't
    • 04:47:13bring it with me. Do you have that? I think we. Our current
    • 04:47:17legal team provides their
    • 04:47:21invoice categorized so that we can see
    • 04:47:24PIA requests and phone calls.
    • 04:47:28All sorts of things, all very neatly. Pretty good detail.
    • 04:47:32I'm satisfied with it anyway. From. Okay,
    • 04:47:35good. That's all I have.
    • 04:47:38Commissioners. Do you have any questions?
    • 04:47:42I just have one quick question. The testimony
    • 04:47:45you read. I just want to make sure you prepared that that wasn't prepared by
    • 04:47:48somebody else that you were reading. Correct. I know it's a nerve wracking experience,
    • 04:47:51but I just want to make sure that's coming from your words. Okay. Thank you.
    • 04:47:55My question is in your forensic
    • 04:48:00analysis. Of the data. Are you
    • 04:48:03aware of a number of meters that are delinquent
    • 04:48:08or homeowners that are delinquent on their bills?
    • 04:48:11I am not specifically like that. Haven't been tracking that.
    • 04:48:15The way I've been progressing is really from the top down.
    • 04:48:19And I'm at the point now where I can start to do,
    • 04:48:23to go deeper into different areas. In fact, the next place
    • 04:48:26I'm going to is our
    • 04:48:30bookkeeping staff, if you will, if you want to call it that, which is really
    • 04:48:34our office admin and a volunteer.
    • 04:48:37That's what we have. And so I'm going to talk to them about
    • 04:48:41their processes and procedures, because I want to be able to month
    • 04:48:45to month, substantiate those numbers that are on our p
    • 04:48:50and l and stuff. And in order to do that, I need to see how
    • 04:48:54that these bills are getting into the system and when
    • 04:48:57to make sure they are getting in and all of them, and determine
    • 04:49:01how, what the decision process is, to determine
    • 04:49:04which bills to pay at what time, etcetera.
    • 04:49:08I haven't been involved in any of those decisions. I'm not trying to
    • 04:49:11inject myself. I'm trying to determine what the processes are
    • 04:49:15so that we, for a number of reasons, reasons, not the least of which is,
    • 04:49:19you know, there's a big bill that comes in. I want to make sure that
    • 04:49:21it's approved in the proper manner, in the way it should be,
    • 04:49:25things like that. So. But what you mentioned is yet another that
    • 04:49:30we could put on the pile of things to do. There are
    • 04:49:34three board members, one paid staff,
    • 04:49:37one volunteer. Commissioner Glotfelty, if you
    • 04:49:40take a look at staff exhibit 22, if you turn to page seven,
    • 04:49:45it's labeled at the bottom, you'll see a past due list that continues
    • 04:49:49on to page eight. I can't say for certain that that
    • 04:49:53is the entirety of the past due accounts
    • 04:49:56held by Windermere Oaks, but at least it does address some
    • 04:50:00of what I think you were looking for.
    • 04:50:18I don't have any more questions.
    • 04:50:23For some odd reason,
    • 04:50:27are these people still members of the supply corporation?
    • 04:50:31To the best of my knowledge, they are. They're their
    • 04:50:34own worst enemy. It's funny how that works.
    • 04:50:39So these members of this corporation,
    • 04:50:43I mean, on this page alone, it says, I mean, they are members
    • 04:50:47of this group, and they owe themselves, their company.
    • 04:50:50$27,557.
    • 04:50:53That is correct. Okay, thank you,
    • 04:51:05Commissioners. Any other questions for Mister Garceau?
    • 04:51:10All right, Mister Garceau, you are. This is actually Garceau.
    • 04:51:14Garceau. I keep pronouncing it wrong. I wouldn't expect you to get it. It's a
    • 04:51:17French-Canadian name. I'm from New England. So thank you for your time.
    • 04:51:20Thank you. All right, we at
    • 04:51:24this point are at about seven
    • 04:51:27minutes left and about nine minutes left.
    • 04:51:31Are we resting at this point? Staff rest, yes.
    • 04:51:35Okay, Mister Walker, are you done before closing
    • 04:51:39with witnesses? No, I'm done with witnesses, yes.
    • 04:51:42Okay. Commissioners, do you have any questions for
    • 04:51:46Miss Lander or Mister Walker at this time?
    • 04:51:59I think we can proceed with our closing statements. Commission Staff,
    • 04:52:02you can go ahead and start. All right. Thank you, Judge Denmark. Chairman, Commissioners
    • 04:52:06thank you again for your time today. After the last
    • 04:52:10three and a half hours. Two and a half hours, I think
    • 04:52:14we can all see that Windermere cannot manage its own affairs. It has thumbed its
    • 04:52:17nose at this Commission and at its own members. It has repeatedly
    • 04:52:21and habitually ignored the commission and its board has made its disdain for the
    • 04:52:25commission clear. It has ignored its customers,
    • 04:52:27disregarding their experience and their desire to see the WSC succeed.
    • 04:52:32It cant adhere to its own tariff. It cant adhere to its own bylaws.
    • 04:52:36It could not present a coherent rate design.
    • 04:52:39Its under investigation by the IR's.
    • 04:52:42It hasn't made plans to update its infrastructure. There are
    • 04:52:45leaks, there are boil water notices. Their equipment is obsolete.
    • 04:52:50The potential health hazards are very real. Almost every time I open
    • 04:52:54a Windemere document or spreadsheet, I see another error, another inconsistency.
    • 04:52:59One of the Commission's ALJs grew so tired of Windermere's non compliance
    • 04:53:03that he asked staff to file a recommendation on what to do.
    • 04:53:06And here we are. I genuinely do not see any option
    • 04:53:10besides a temporary manager. Forcing Windermere to pay administrative
    • 04:53:14penalties only hurts the ratepayers. And while having a
    • 04:53:18temporary manager isn't free, it at least comes with the benefit of helping
    • 04:53:21Windermere get its affairs in order. But right now
    • 04:53:25it's time for Windermere to see the consequences of its actions
    • 04:53:29and its inactions. This Commission cannot allow any
    • 04:53:33utility, big or small, to ignore its orders and ignore the law
    • 04:53:37over and over and over. And it is
    • 04:53:40possible that the board wants to apologize, wants to say it's sorry, wants to
    • 04:53:44say that it will do better. But the time for apologies has passed.
    • 04:53:48The time for exceptions has passed. Windermere has had
    • 04:53:52ample time to address its shortcomings. In docket 56167,
    • 04:53:56the ALJ gave Windermere multiple chances to get it right.
    • 04:54:00Windermere did not even respond to those orders.
    • 04:54:04And that's the essence of the problem. Windermere doesn't think enough of
    • 04:54:08this Commission to grace it with a response, even less fulfill
    • 04:54:12the requirements that it chose to submit to.
    • 04:54:15Ultimately, a slap on the wrist doesn't help Windermere's customers.
    • 04:54:19Things are in such a state of disarray that Windermere desperately needs professional
    • 04:54:23help. Giving them more time, time to satisfy the requirements
    • 04:54:27that it has ignored for months won't put its infrastructure right.
    • 04:54:31Giving it more time won't magically make Windermere capable
    • 04:54:34of simply filing consistent information with
    • 04:54:38the Commission. The members of Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation
    • 04:54:42need our help. And after today, I hope the Commission can see that help is
    • 04:54:45warranted. And where we can help ratepayers and are
    • 04:54:49justified in helping them, we should. And for that
    • 04:54:53reason, Staff respectfully requests that the Commission issue
    • 04:54:57an order appointing a temporary manager for Windermere Oaks Water
    • 04:55:00Supply Corporation. Thank you,
    • 04:55:04Mister Walker, as thank you very much,
    • 04:55:08everybody in this room. Commission,
    • 04:55:11Miss Denmark and so on. I don't disagree.
    • 04:55:15I said it from the beginning. We definitely have issues. There's no doubt
    • 04:55:19about it. And I can't tell you enough what it comes down to.
    • 04:55:23It comes down to money. And I will
    • 04:55:26go back to the report, the director's report here. Of the
    • 04:55:29246 members, those are receipts that we
    • 04:55:33received. At the time of the report, we received $22,164
    • 04:55:38for 246 members. Yes, that was receipts
    • 04:55:42that we received. So I want to make that clarification. You had probably 40
    • 04:55:45members in there. You don't get much above $30,000 a month that
    • 04:55:49we're generating in receipts. So I wanted to clarify that as far
    • 04:55:53as the director's report, those reports are very detailed. They're very
    • 04:55:56old. They do need to be updated, and it does take some
    • 04:56:00navigation and understanding of them. It took me a while to get with that.
    • 04:56:04We are not habitual, you know,
    • 04:56:08as Miss Lander said about our filings
    • 04:56:12and such, we're doing the best we can with three individuals on the
    • 04:56:15board, limited money, and a lot of things thrown at us. It was
    • 04:56:19just presented about an IRS audit. Did we anticipate that in 2024?
    • 04:56:24Heck no. That was issued by a
    • 04:56:28member within the community who does that to their own corporation.
    • 04:56:31That's an audit of 2022 of the way
    • 04:56:34we did our taxes. Boy, if that was me, what I would have
    • 04:56:38done is come to the board and say, hey, you're about ready to file your
    • 04:56:402023 taxes. Make sure you look at these areas.
    • 04:56:44Make sure, because what we found, you know, in our analysis was,
    • 04:56:48hey, there might there might have been some things missing, but instead somebody
    • 04:56:52filed an audit against us within the IRS and you got to respond.
    • 04:56:56Unless the PUC has the, you know, capability of going up
    • 04:56:59and I front of the IRS and saying, well, we're going to put these guys
    • 04:57:02off because they got to spend some money on a compliance filing.
    • 04:57:06That's a tough call to make. You heard from Hal
    • 04:57:09in regards to our operations? You betcha.
    • 04:57:13We got an old system, there's no doubt about it. We don't even have a
    • 04:57:15clarifier. That's a big deal. That's a 300 plus
    • 04:57:19thousand dollar investment that we need to make. You can't make that with
    • 04:57:23the rates the way they are. You heard from Brian. We got a $500,000
    • 04:57:27legal bill that's still outstanding. You add that to
    • 04:57:31what they're asking us for an infrastructure standpoint,
    • 04:57:35how do you pay for that? The only way you pay for it is with
    • 04:57:38a rating is through rates and through revenue. We just
    • 04:57:42don't have it. We can't sustain. You can look at those bills and it
    • 04:57:45would be great if there was a comparison to what we used to pay to
    • 04:57:49what is being paid now. And you'll see it's significant. I showed you my
    • 04:57:52example. It is the most extreme, but I think it's 19%
    • 04:57:56of the membership out there that have a bill like mine. That's a lot of
    • 04:57:59members. That's a lot of members who are generating a seven dollar bill
    • 04:58:03to go against operations. So like I said,
    • 04:58:08we don't disagree from a board standpoint and from the memberships that are sitting back
    • 04:58:11here of assigning a temporary manager,
    • 04:58:15not at all. Come help us out. But he better be ready
    • 04:58:18for a lot of stuff, stuff that's going to hit them right off the bat.
    • 04:58:22And the first thing is going to be revenue, as Brian pointed out,
    • 04:58:24or how we're not functioning bad. It's.
    • 04:58:27We just don't have enough operating capital to maintain. We're losing $11,500
    • 04:58:33a month. That's significant in a water utility. We didn't have that
    • 04:58:36problem before the rate appeal went into play. Anybody asked that question up
    • 04:58:39here, we didn't have that problem. We had it after the rate appeal.
    • 04:58:43Once those new rates got into play, we still had legal bills
    • 04:58:46just like we do now. And they were much more significant. But we
    • 04:58:50were able to pay them. But as soon as the rate order came in,
    • 04:58:53wow. Same operator was doing our
    • 04:58:56work. They've been in, they were involved since August of
    • 04:58:592023. So we knew what that cost was. But sure
    • 04:59:03enough, we get ourselves into financial problems, and you look at the P&L.
    • 04:59:06It all started once the new rates went into play. That's what it's
    • 04:59:10about. Thank you very much.
    • 04:59:13And I'm concluding because I want to go home.
    • 04:59:17And I know you do, too. Commissioners, do you have anything further?
    • 04:59:21No. All right.
    • 04:59:24We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.
    • 04:59:28Thank you, ma'am. Absolutely.
    • 04:59:34Thank you. Mister Walker, Miss Lander, Judge Denmark,
    • 04:59:38all the witnesses, all the residents who came and show up today. Appreciate you
    • Clip 13 - Docket No. 57065 – Petition for an Order Appointing a Temporary Manager to Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation
      04:59:42taking the time to come out. So with the adjournment of that Commission held
    • 04:59:46hearing, I will reconvene our regularly scheduled open meeting
    • 04:59:50and call up Item No. 13. That's Docket 57065.
    • 04:59:54Petition for an order appointing a temporary manager to Windermere Oaks Water
    • 04:59:58Supply Corporation. So we
    • 05:00:02heard a lot, lot of evidence,
    • 05:00:05a lot of testimony. You know,
    • 05:00:09obviously, Mister Walker said that he doesn't object
    • 05:00:12to a temporary manager. I think we have a
    • 05:00:15lot to consider if we're going to appoint a temporary manager.
    • 05:00:19I want to make sure the order is right. And so I think
    • 05:00:22what I'd say at this point, what I'd recommend is let's
    • 05:00:26let OPDM come up with bullet points and give us
    • 05:00:30briefing ahead of the November 14 open meeting,
    • 05:00:34and then move forward at the November 14 open meeting.
    • 05:00:37If that works for everybody.
    • 05:00:40Yes. Sounds good. Okay.
    • 05:00:44Shelah, is there anything else?
    • Clip 59 - Chairman Gleeson adjourns meeting
      05:00:47No, sir. All right. With there being no further business
    • 05:00:51before us, this meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Texas is hereby adjourned.
    Chairman Gleeson calls meeting to order
    Starts at 00:00:04
    Chairman Gleeson calls meeting to order
    Starts at 00:00:04
    Motion to excuse Commissioner Cobos from today's meeting
    Starts at 00:01:52
    Motion to excuse Commissioner Cobos from today's meeting
    Starts at 00:01:52
    Commission Counsel Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda
    Starts at 00:03:20
    Commission Counsel Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda
    Starts at 00:03:20
    1 - Shelah Cisneros confirms who has signed up for Public Comment
    Starts at 00:04:03
    1 - Public comment for matters that are under the Commission’s jurisdiction, but not specifically posted on this agenda
    Starts at 00:04:03
    1 - Alan Hicks - Member of Windermere Oaks WSC
    Starts at 00:04:49
    1 - Alan Hicks - Member of Windermere Oaks WSC
    Starts at 00:04:49
    1 - Scott Miller - Member of Windermere Oaks WSC
    Starts at 00:05:25
    1 - Scott Miller - Member of Windermere Oaks WSC
    Starts at 00:05:25
    1 - Deborah Fato - Ratepayer Rep for Bear Creek SUD
    Starts at 00:07:51
    1 - Deborah Fato - Ratepayer Rep for Bear Creek SUD
    Starts at 00:07:51
    20 - Docket No. 55768; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-06199 – Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and N
    Starts at 00:13:56
    20 - Docket No. 55768; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-06199 – Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and N
    Starts at 00:13:56
    20 - Sam Elliott - Montgomery County resident - opposition to CenterPoint's application, 55768
    Starts at 00:15:53
    20 - Sam Elliott - Montgomery County resident - opposition to CenterPoint's application, 55768
    Starts at 00:15:53
    20 - Rebecca Elliott - Montgomery County resident - opposition to CenterPoint's application, 55768
    Starts at 00:18:42
    20 - Rebecca Elliott - Montgomery County resident - opposition to CenterPoint's application, 55768
    Starts at 00:18:42
    20 - Mason McBee - Montgomery County resident - opposition to CenterPoint's application, 55768
    Starts at 00:20:15
    20 - Mason McBee - Montgomery County resident - opposition to CenterPoint's application, 55768
    Starts at 00:20:15
    20 - James Day - Montgomery County resident - opposition to CenterPoint's application, 55768
    Starts at 00:23:04
    20 - James Day - Montgomery County resident - opposition to CenterPoint's application, 55768
    Starts at 00:23:04
    20 - Dylan King - Commission Staff - support for Route 2a, 55768
    Starts at 00:24:42
    20 - Dylan King - Commission Staff - support for Route 2a, 55768
    Starts at 00:24:42
    20 - Patrick Leahy - Baker Botts on behalf of CenterPoint - How transmission line would serve community, 55768
    Starts at 00:25:00
    20 - Patrick Leahy - Baker Botts on behalf of CenterPoint - How transmission line would serve community, 55768
    Starts at 00:25:00
    20 - Commissioner Hjaltman to CenterPoint - How application was prepared, 55768
    Starts at 00:28:46
    20 - Commissioner Hjaltman to CenterPoint - How application was prepared, 55768
    Starts at 00:28:46
    20 - Commissioner Glotfelty to CenterPoint - Transmission lines and railroad tracks, 55768
    Starts at 00:30:21
    20 - Commissioner Glotfelty to CenterPoint - Transmission lines and railroad tracks, 55768
    Starts at 00:30:21
    14 - Docket No. 55299 – Application of Syntrio Solutions, LLC for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity in Baylor, Clay, Childress, Cottle, Foard, Hal
    Starts at 00:32:43
    14 - Docket No. 55299 – Application of Syntrio Solutions, LLC for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity in Baylor, Clay, Childress, Cottle, Foard, Hal
    Starts at 00:32:43
    14 - Motion to grant in part & deny in part appeal of Order No. 16, 55299
    Starts at 00:33:34
    14 - Motion to grant in part & deny in part appeal of Order No. 16, 55299
    Starts at 00:33:34
    15 - Docket No. 54614; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-04312 – Statement of Intent and Application of El Paso Electric Company for Approval of Texas Electric Vehicl
    Starts at 00:33:55
    15 - Docket No. 54614; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-04312 – Statement of Intent and Application of El Paso Electric Company for Approval of Texas Electric Vehicl
    Starts at 00:33:55
    15 - Motion to modify PFD with changes from Chairman Gleeson & Commission Counsel's memos and direct docket management to prepare an order, 54614
    Starts at 00:35:06
    15 - Motion to modify PFD with changes from Chairman Gleeson & Commission Counsel's memos and direct docket management to prepare an order, 54614
    Starts at 00:35:06
    17 - Docket No. 55255; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-02691 – Application of Southwestern Public Service Company to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necess
    Starts at 00:35:31
    17 - Docket No. 55255; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-02691 – Application of Southwestern Public Service Company to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necess
    Starts at 00:35:31
    17 - Motion to extend time to act on motions for rehearing to maximum time allowed by law, 55255
    Starts at 00:36:05
    17 - Motion to extend time to act on motions for rehearing to maximum time allowed by law, 55255
    Starts at 00:36:05
    19 - Docket No. 55361; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-07156– Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC to Adjust Its System-Wide Reliability Standard
    Starts at 00:36:30
    19 - Docket No. 55361; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-07156– Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC to Adjust Its System-Wide Reliability Standard
    Starts at 00:36:30
    19 - Commisssioner's thoughts on the Chairman's memo, 55361
    Starts at 00:37:12
    19 - Commisssioner's thoughts on the Chairman's memo, 55361
    Starts at 00:37:12
    19 - Motion to deny CenterPoint's application, 55361
    Starts at 00:38:29
    19 - Motion to deny CenterPoint's application, 55361
    Starts at 00:38:29
    23 - Docket No. 56211; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-13232 – Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC for Authority to Change Rates
    Starts at 00:38:56
    23 - Docket No. 56211; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-13232 – Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC for Authority to Change Rates
    Starts at 00:38:56
    23 - Patrick Peters - Associate General Counsel & VP at CenterPoint - Legal authority governing the Commission's decision & establishing good cause to exte
    Starts at 00:40:02
    23 - Patrick Peters - Associate General Counsel & VP at CenterPoint - Legal authority governing the Commission's decision & establishing good cause to exte
    Starts at 00:40:02
    23 - Thomas Brocato - GCCC - Proceeding with rate case, 56211
    Starts at 00:44:04
    23 - Thomas Brocato - GCCC - Proceeding with rate case, 56211
    Starts at 00:44:04
    23 - Chairman Gleeson to Thomas Brocato - Rates, 56211
    Starts at 00:48:51
    23 - Chairman Gleeson to Thomas Brocato - Rates, 56211
    Starts at 00:48:51
    23 - Brad Bailiff - IBEW Local Union 66 - Granting appeal on Order No. 14, 56211
    Starts at 00:50:26
    23 - Brad Bailiff - IBEW Local Union 66 - Granting appeal on Order No. 14, 56211
    Starts at 00:50:26
    23 - Michael McMillin - TIEC - Potential precedential effect of withdrawal of rate case, 56211
    Starts at 00:53:31
    23 - Michael McMillin - TIEC - Potential precedential effect of withdrawal of rate case, 56211
    Starts at 00:53:31
    23 - Sergio Herrera - TCUC - Deny CenterPoint's appeal of SOAH Oder No. 14, 56211
    Starts at 00:55:33
    23 - Sergio Herrera - TCUC - Deny CenterPoint's appeal of SOAH Oder No. 14, 56211
    Starts at 00:55:33
    23 - Alton Hall - Houston Coalition of Cities - Deny CenterPoint's appeal of ALJ's order, 56211
    Starts at 00:58:13
    23 - Alton Hall - Houston Coalition of Cities - Deny CenterPoint's appeal of ALJ's order, 56211
    Starts at 00:58:13
    23 - Chairman to Alton Hall - Evaluating CenterPoint's performance during Hurricane Beryl, 56211
    Starts at 01:05:01
    23 - Chairman to Alton Hall - Evaluating CenterPoint's performance during Hurricane Beryl, 56211
    Starts at 01:05:01
    23 - Cathy Webking - REP Coalition - Potential denial could lead to additional intervener discovery, 56211
    Starts at 01:08:10
    23 - Cathy Webking - REP Coalition - Potential denial could lead to additional intervener discovery, 56211
    Starts at 01:08:10
    23 - Kelsey Daugherty - Commission Staff - Allowing CenterPoint to withdraw, 56211
    Starts at 01:09:36
    23 - Kelsey Daugherty - Commission Staff - Allowing CenterPoint to withdraw, 56211
    Starts at 01:09:36
    23 - Patrick Peters - CenterPoint - Closing remarks, 56211
    Starts at 01:10:14
    23 - Patrick Peters - CenterPoint - Closing remarks, 56211
    Starts at 01:10:14
    23 - Chairman asks for decision to be made at next Open Meeting, 56211
    Starts at 01:11:49
    23 - Chairman asks for decision to be made at next Open Meeting, 56211
    Starts at 01:11:49
    25 - Docket No. 56413 – Application of AEP Texas Inc. to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for the Alamito Creek-to-Fort Davis 138-kV Tran
    Starts at 01:12:50
    25 - Docket No. 56413 – Application of AEP Texas Inc. to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for the Alamito Creek-to-Fort Davis 138-kV Tran
    Starts at 01:12:50
    25 - Motion to approve revised proposed order, 56413
    Starts at 01:13:27
    25 - Motion to approve revised proposed order, 56413
    Starts at 01:13:27
    27 - Docket No. 56545; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-18029 – Application of Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC for Approval of a System Resiliency Plan
    Starts at 01:13:50
    27 - Docket No. 56545; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-18029 – Application of Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC for Approval of a System Resiliency Plan
    Starts at 01:13:50
    27 - Commissioner Glotfelty lays out his memo, 56545
    Starts at 01:14:13
    27 - Commissioner Glotfelty lays out his memo, 56545
    Starts at 01:14:13
    27 - Brian Lloyd - VP of Regulatory Policy, Oncor - Wildfire System Resiliency Plan, 56545
    Starts at 01:16:07
    27 - Brian Lloyd - VP of Regulatory Policy, Oncor - Wildfire System Resiliency Plan, 56545
    Starts at 01:16:07
    27 - Commissioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Wildfires vs. Wind, 56545
    Starts at 01:33:15
    27 - Commissioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Wildfires vs. Wind, 56545
    Starts at 01:33:15
    27 - Commisssioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Cybersecurity & proprietary fiber network, 56545
    Starts at 01:40:41
    27 - Commisssioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Cybersecurity & proprietary fiber network, 56545
    Starts at 01:40:41
    27 - Commisssioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Plan timeframe & funding, 56545
    Starts at 01:42:07
    27 - Commisssioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Plan timeframe & funding, 56545
    Starts at 01:42:07
    27 - Commisssioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Vegetation management spending, 56545
    Starts at 01:45:00
    27 - Commisssioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Vegetation management spending, 56545
    Starts at 01:45:00
    27 - Ellen Buck - VP of Business & Operations, Oncor - Vegetation management, 56545
    Starts at 01:45:41
    27 - Ellen Buck - VP of Business & Operations, Oncor - Vegetation management, 56545
    Starts at 01:45:41
    27 - Commisssioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Individual metrics for each utility, 56545
    Starts at 01:48:43
    27 - Commisssioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd - Individual metrics for each utility, 56545
    Starts at 01:48:43
    27 - Commisssioner Jackson to Brian Lloyd - Weather events vs. blue sky days, 56545
    Starts at 01:54:15
    27 - Commisssioner Jackson to Brian Lloyd - Weather events vs. blue sky days, 56545
    Starts at 01:54:15
    27 - Commisssioner Jackson to Ellen Buck & Brian Lloyd - Addressing risk, 56545
    Starts at 01:57:23
    27 - Commisssioner Jackson to Ellen Buck & Brian Lloyd - Addressing risk, 56545
    Starts at 01:57:23
    27 - Chairman Gleeson calls for recess
    Starts at 02:00:45
    27 - Chairman Gleeson calls for recess
    Starts at 02:00:45
    27 - Chairman Gleeson reconvenes open meeting
    Starts at 02:01:01
    27 - Chairman Gleeson reconvenes open meeting
    Starts at 02:01:01
    29 - Docket No. 56609 – Settlement Agreement and Report to the Commission Regarding CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric LLC’s Violations of 16 TAC § 25.52,
    Starts at 02:01:09
    29 - Docket No. 56609 – Settlement Agreement and Report to the Commission Regarding CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric LLC’s Violations of 16 TAC § 25.52,
    Starts at 02:01:09
    29 - Commissioner Hjaltman's thoughts on settlement agreement , 56609
    Starts at 02:01:35
    29 - Commissioner Hjaltman's thoughts on settlement agreement , 56609
    Starts at 02:01:35
    29 - Motion to approve proposed order, 56609
    Starts at 02:02:12
    29 - Motion to approve proposed order, 56609
    Starts at 02:02:12
    30 - John Lajzer - Commissioner Staff - Unclaimed funds, 56637
    Starts at 02:02:55
    30 - Motion to approve proposed order, 56637
    Starts at 02:04:20
    33 - Docket No. 56673 – Settlement Agreement and Report to the Commission Regarding Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation’s Violations of 16 TAC § 25.503e2,
    Starts at 02:04:41
    33 - Motion to approve proposed order, 56673
    Starts at 02:05:08
    18 - Docket No. 55338; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-07154 – Proceeding to Resolve Issues in Docket No. 53719 Related to Transportation and Electrification and Ch
    Starts at 02:05:35
    18 - Docket No. 55338; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-07154 – Proceeding to Resolve Issues in Docket No. 53719 Related to Transportation and Electrification and Ch
    Starts at 02:05:35
    18 - Commissioner Glotfelty lays out his memo, 55338
    Starts at 02:06:14
    18 - Commissioner Glotfelty lays out his memo, 55338
    Starts at 02:06:14
    18 - Motion to adopt PFD with modifications, 55338
    Starts at 02:06:43
    18 - Motion to adopt PFD with modifications, 55338
    Starts at 02:06:43
    41 - Project No. 56897 – Electric Utility Outage Trackers and Hazardous Condition Reporting
    Starts at 02:07:38
    41 - Project No. 56897 – Electric Utility Outage Trackers and Hazardous Condition Reporting
    Starts at 02:07:38
    42 - Project No. 56898 – Provision of Emergency Contact Information to Transmission and<br />Distribution Utilities by Retail Electric Providers
    Starts at 02:07:49
    42 - Project No. 56898 – Provision of Emergency Contact Information to Transmission and<br />Distribution Utilities by Retail Electric Providers
    Starts at 02:07:49
    41 - David Smeltzer - Commission Staff - Online outage map, 56897
    Starts at 02:09:28
    41 - David Smeltzer - Commission Staff - Online outage map, 56897
    Starts at 02:09:28
    41 - David Smeltzer - Commission Staff - Testing of an outage tracker
    Starts at 02:11:12
    41 - David Smeltzer - Commission Staff - Testing of an outage tracker
    Starts at 02:11:12
    42 - David Smeltzer - Commission Staff - Customers signing up for status updates & providing emergency contacts, 56898
    Starts at 02:11:50
    42 - David Smeltzer - Commission Staff - Customers signing up for status updates & providing emergency contacts, 56898
    Starts at 02:11:50
    42 - Chairman's thoughts on customer communication, 56898
    Starts at 02:17:45
    42 - Chairman's thoughts on customer communication, 56898
    Starts at 02:17:45
    41 - Chairman & Commissioner thought's on tracking progress, 56897
    Starts at 02:18:56
    41 - Chairman & Commissioner thought's on tracking progress, 56897
    Starts at 02:18:56
    43 - Project No. 57152 – Identifying Transmission Service Providers for Implementing the Permian Basin Reliability Plan
    Starts at 02:26:37
    43 - Project No. 57152 – Identifying Transmission Service Providers for Implementing the Permian Basin Reliability Plan
    Starts at 02:26:37
    43 - John Harrison - Commission Staff - Memo on determining, identifying & approving applicable TSPs for projects associated with the Permian Basin Reliab
    Starts at 02:27:09
    43 - John Harrison - Commission Staff - Memo on determining, identifying & approving applicable TSPs for projects associated with the Permian Basin Reliab
    Starts at 02:27:09
    43 - Commissioner's thoughts on memo, 57152
    Starts at 02:32:34
    43 - Commissioner's thoughts on memo, 57152
    Starts at 02:32:34
    54 - Project No. 56040 – CY 2024 Open Meeting Agenda Items Without an Associated Control Number
    Starts at 02:34:06
    54 - Project No. 56040 – CY 2024 Open Meeting Agenda Items Without an Associated Control Number
    Starts at 02:34:06
    54 - Nicky Carter - Commission Internal Auditor - Consideration of approval of FY '25 Internal Audit Plan, 56040
    Starts at 02:34:47
    54 - Nicky Carter - Commission Internal Auditor - Consideration of approval of FY '25 Internal Audit Plan, 56040
    Starts at 02:34:47
    54 - Motion to approve 2025 internal audit plan, 56040
    Starts at 02:37:39
    54 - Motion to approve 2025 internal audit plan, 56040
    Starts at 02:37:39
    59 - Discussion and possible action regarding agency review by Sunset Advisory Commission, operating budget, strategic plan, appropriations request, projec
    Starts at 02:37:53
    59 - Discussion and possible action regarding agency review by Sunset Advisory Commission, operating budget, strategic plan, appropriations request, projec
    Starts at 02:37:53
    59 - Barksdale English - PUC Deputy Executive Director - Workshop on Texas Backup Power Package Program
    Starts at 02:38:08
    59 - Barksdale English - PUC Deputy Executive Director - Workshop on Texas Backup Power Package Program
    Starts at 02:38:08
    59 - Chairman Gleeson calls for recess
    Starts at 02:39:47
    59 - Chairman Gleeson calls for recess
    Starts at 02:39:47
    59 - Chairman Gleeson reconvenes open meeting
    Starts at 02:40:21
    59 - Chairman Gleeson reconvenes open meeting
    Starts at 02:40:21
    13 - Chairman Gleeson calls for recess of open meeting to convene Hearing for Docket No. 57065
    Starts at 02:40:28
    13 - Chairman Gleeson calls for recess of open meeting to convene Hearing for Docket No. 57065
    Starts at 02:40:28
    13 - Docket No. 57065 – Petition for an Order Appointing a Temporary Manager to Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation
    Starts at 04:59:42
    13 - Docket No. 57065 – Petition for an Order Appointing a Temporary Manager to Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation
    Starts at 04:59:42
    59 - Chairman Gleeson adjourns meeting
    Starts at 05:00:47
    59 - Chairman Gleeson adjourns meeting
    Starts at 05:00:47

    Commissioner Memos

    ControlItemFiling DatePartyDescriptionAction
    55338105October 23, 2024COMMISSIONER JIMMY GLOTFELTYCOMMISSIONER JIMMY GLOTFELTY MEMORANDUM
    56545153October 23, 2024COMMISSIONER JIMMY GLOTFELTYCOMMISSIONER JIMMY GLOTFELTY MEMORANDUM
    5529954October 23, 2024CHAIRMAN GLEESONCHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
    5641362October 23, 2024CHAIRMAN GLEESONCHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
    566736October 23, 2024CHAIRMAN GLEESONCHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
    5536148October 23, 2024CHAIRMAN GLEESONCHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
    54614101October 23, 2024CHAIRMAN GLEESONCHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM

    Help Desk